{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_3420/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_3420","id":"gutenberg_3420","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3420","summary":null,"tags":["Best Books Ever Listings","Category: British Literature","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Gender & Sexuality Studies","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Feminism","Women -- Education -- Great Britain","Women -- History -- 19th century","Women's rights -- Great Britain"],"text":"Ver.12.12.00*END*\n\n\n\n\nThis etext was produced by\nAmy E Zelmer  <a.zelmer@cqu.edu.au>\nCol Choat  <CChoat@sanderson.net.au>\nSue Asscher  <asschers@dingoblue.net.au>\n\n\n\n\n\nA VINDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OF WOMAN,\nWITH STRICTURES ON POLITICAL AND MORAL SUBJECTS,\nBY MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT.\n\nWITH A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\nCHAPTER 1.  THE RIGHTS AND INVOLVED DUTIES OF MANKIND CONSIDERED.\n\nCHAPTER 2.  THE PREVAILING OPINION OF A SEXUAL CHARACTER DISCUSSED.\n\nCHAPTER 3.  THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.\n\nCHAPTER 4.  OBSERVATIONS ON THE STATE OF DEGRADATION TO WHICH WOMAN\nIS REDUCED BY VARIOUS CAUSES.\n\nCHAPTER 5.  ANIMADVERSIONS ON SOME OF THE WRITERS WHO HAVE RENDERED\nWOMEN OBJECTS OF PITY, BORDERING ON CONTEMPT.\n\nCHAPTER 6.  THE EFFECT WHICH AN EARLY ASSOCIATION OF IDEAS HAS UPON\nTHE CHARACTER.\n\nCHAPTER 7.  MODESTY.  COMPREHENSIVELY CONSIDERED, AND NOT AS A\nSEXUAL VIRTUE.\n\nCHAPTER 8.  MORALITY UNDERMINED BY SEXUAL NOTIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE\nOF A GOOD REPUTATION\n\nCHAPTER 9. OF THE PERNICIOUS EFFECTS WHICH ARISE FROM THE UNNATURAL\nDISTINCTIONS ESTABLISHED IN SOCIETY.\n\nCHAPTER 10.  PARENTAL AFFECTION.\n\nCHAPTER 11.  DUTY TO PARENTS\n\nCHAPTER 12.  ON NATIONAL EDUCATION\n\nCHAPTER 13.  SOME INSTANCES OF THE FOLLY WHICH THE IGNORANCE OF\nWOMEN GENERATES; WITH CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS ON THE MORAL\nIMPROVEMENT THAT A REVOLUTION IN FEMALE MANNERS MAY NATURALLY BE\nEXPECTED TO PRODUCE.\n8 April, 2001\n\n\nA BRIEF SKETCH OF THE LIFE OF MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT.\n\nM. Wollstonecraft was born in 1759.  Her father was so great a\nwanderer, that the place of her birth is uncertain; she supposed,\nhowever, it was London, or Epping Forest:  at the latter place she\nspent the first five years of her life.  In early youth she\nexhibited traces of exquisite sensibility, soundness of\nunderstanding, and decision of character; but her father being a\ndespot in his family, and her mother one of his subjects, Mary,\nderived little benefit from their parental training.  She received\nno literary instructions but such as were to be had in ordinary day\nschools.  Before her sixteenth year she became acquainted with Mr.\nClare a clergyman, and Miss Frances Blood; the latter, two years\nolder than herself; who possessing good taste and some knowledge of\nthe fine arts, seems to have given the first impulse to the\nformation of her character.  At the age of nineteen, she left her\nparents, and resided with a Mrs. Dawson for two years; when she\nreturned to the parental roof to give attention to her mother,\nwhose ill health made her presence necessary.  On the death of her\nmother, Mary bade a final adieu to her father's house, and became\nthe inmate of F. Blood; thus situated, their intimacy increased,\nand a strong attachment was reciprocated.  In 1783 she commenced a\nday school at Newington green, in conjunction with her friend, F.\nBlood.  At this place she became acquainted with Dr. Price, to whom\nshe became strongly attached; the regard was mutual.\n\nIt is said that she became a teacher from motives of benevolence,\nor rather philanthropy, and during the time she continued in the\nprofession, she gave proof of superior qualification for the\nperformance of its arduous and important duties.  Her friend and\ncoadjutor married and removed to Lisbon, in Portugal, where she\ndied of a pulmonary disease; the symptoms of which were visible\nbefore her marriage.  So true was Mary's attachment to her, that\nshe entrusted her school to the care of others, for the purpose of\nattending Frances in her closing scene.  She aided, as did Dr.\nYoung, in \"Stealing Narcissa a grave.\"  Her mind was expanded by\nthis residence in a foreign country, and though clear of religious\nbigotry before, she took some instructive lessons on the evils of\nsuperstition, and intolerance.\n\nOn her return she found the school had suffered by her absence, and\nhaving previously decided to apply herself to literature, she now\nresolved to commence.  In 1787 she made, or received, proposals\nfrom Johnson, a publisher in London, who was already acquainted\nwith her talents as an author.  During the three subsequent years,\nshe was actively engaged, more in translating, condensing, and\ncompiling, than in the production of original works.  At this time\nshe laboured under much depression of spirits, for the loss of her\nfriend; this rather increased, perhaps, by the publication of\n\"Mary, a novel,\" which was mostly composed of incidents and\nreflections connected with their intimacy.\n\nThe pecuniary concerns of her father becoming embarrassed, Mary\npractised a rigid economy in her expenditures, and with her savings\nwas enabled to procure her sisters and brothers situations, to\nwhich without her aid, they could not have had access; her father\nwas sustained at length from her funds; she even found means to\ntake under her protection an orphan child.\n\nShe had acquired a facility in the arrangement and expression of\nthoughts, in her avocation of translator, and compiler, which was\nno doubt of great use to her afterward.  It was not long until she\nhad occasion for them.  The eminent Burke produced his celebrated\n\"Reflections on the Revolution in France.\"  Mary full of sentiments\nof liberty, and indignant at what she thought subversive of it,\nseized her pen and produced the first attack upon that famous work.\nIt succeeded well, for though intemperate and contemptuous, it was\nvehemently and impetuously eloquent; and though Burke was beloved\nby the enlightened friends of freedom, they were dissatisfied and\ndisgusted with what they deemed an outrage upon it.\n\nIt is said that Mary, had not wanted confidence in her own powers\nbefore, but the reception this work met from the public, gave her\nan opportunity of judging what those powers were, in the estimation\nof others.  It was shortly after this, that she commenced the work\nto which these remarks are prefixed.  What are its merits will be\ndecided in the judgment of each reader; suffice it to say she\nappears to have stept forth boldly, and singly, in defence of that\nhalf of the human race, which by the usages of all society, whether\nsavage or civilized, have been kept from attaining their proper\ndignity--their equal rank as rational beings.  It would appear that\nthe disguise used in placing on woman the silken fetters which\nbribed her into endurance, and even love of slavery, but increased\nthe opposition of our authoress:  she would have had more patience\nwith rude, brute coercion, than with that imposing gallantry,\nwhich, while it affects to consider woman as the pride, and\nornament of creation, degrades her to a toy--an appendage--a\ncypher.  The work was much reprehended, and as might well be\nexpected, found its greatest enemies in the pretty soft\ncreatures--the spoiled children of her own sex.  She accomplished\nit in six weeks.\n\nIn 1792 she removed to Paris, where she became acquainted with\nGilbert Imlay, of the United States.  And from this acquaintance\ngrew an attachment, which brought the parties together, without\nlegal formalities, to which she objected on account of some family\nembarrassments, in which he would thereby become involved.  The\nengagement was however considered by her of the most sacred nature,\nand they formed the plan of emigrating to America, where they\nshould be enabled to accomplish it.  These were the days of\nRobespierrean cruelty, and Imlay left Paris for Havre, whither\nafter a time Mary followed him.  They continued to reside there,\nuntil he left Havre for London, under pretence of business, and\nwith a promise of rejoining her soon at Paris, which however he did\nnot, but in 1795 sent for her to London.  In the mean time she had\nbecome the mother of a female child, whom she called Frances in\ncommemoration of her early friendship.\n\nBefore she went to England, she had some gloomy forebodings that\nthe affections of Imlay, had waned, if they were not estranged from\nher; on her arrival, those forebodings were sorrowfully confirmed.\nHis attentions were too formal and constrained to pass unobserved\nby her penetration, and though he ascribed his manner, and his\nabsence, to business duties, she saw his affection for her was only\nsomething to be remembered.  To use her own expression, \"Love, dear\ndelusion!  Rigorous reason has forced me to resign; and now my\nrational prospects are blasted, just as I have learned to be\ncontented with rational enjoyments.\"  To pretend to depict her\nmisery at this time would be futile; the best idea can be formed of\nit from the fact that she had planned her own destruction, from\nwhich Imlay prevented her.  She conceived the idea of suicide a\nsecond time, and threw herself into the Thames; she remained in the\nwater, until consciousness forsook her, but she was taken up and\nresuscitated.  After divers attempts to revive the affections of\nImlay, with sundry explanations and professions on his part,\nthrough the lapse of two years, she resolved finally to forgo all\nhope of reclaiming him, and endeavour to think of him no more in\nconnexion with her future prospects.  In this she succeeded so\nwell, that she afterwards had a private interview with him, which\ndid not produce any painful emotions.\n\nIn 1796 she revived or improved an acquaintance which commenced\nyears before with Wm. Godwin, author of \"Political Justice,\" and\nother works of great notoriety.  Though they had not been\nfavourably impressed with each other on their former acquaintance,\nthey now met under circumstances which permitted a mutual and just\nappreciation of character.  Their intimacy increased by regular and\nalmost imperceptible degrees.  The partiality they conceived for\neach other was, according to her biographer, \"In the most refined\nstyle of love.  It grew with equal advances in the mind of each.\nIt would have been impossible for the most minute observer to have\nsaid who was before, or who after.  One sex did not take the\npriority which long established custom has awarded it, nor the\nother overstep that delicacy which is so severely imposed.  Neither\nparty could assume to have been the agent or the patient, the\ntoil-spreader or the prey in the affair.  When in the course of\nthings the disclosure came, there was nothing in a manner for\neither to disclose to the other.\"\n\nMary lived but a few months after her marriage, and died in\nchild-bed; having given birth to a daughter who is now known to the\nliterary world as Mrs. Shelly, the widow of Percy Bysche Shelly.\n\nWe can scarcely avoid regret that one of such splendid talents, and\nhigh toned feelings, should, after the former seemed to have been\nfully developed, and the latter had found an object in whom they\nmight repose, after their eccentric and painful efforts to find a\nresting place--that such an one should at such a time, be cut off\nfrom life is something which we cannot contemplate without feeling\nregret; we can scarcely repress the murmur that she had not been\nremoved ere clouds darkened her horizon, or that she had remained\nto witness the brightness and serenity which might have succeeded.\nBut thus it is; we may trace the cause to anti-social arrangements;\nit is not individuals but society which must change it, and that\nnot by enactments, but by a change in public opinion.\n\nThe authoress of the \"Rights of Woman,\" was born April 1759, died\nSeptember 1797.\n\nThat there may be no doubt regarding the facts in this sketch, they\nare taken from a memoir written by her afflicted husband.  In\naddition to many kind things he has said of her, (he was not\nblinded to imperfections in her character) is, that she was \"Lovely\nin her person, and in the best and most engaging sense feminine in\nher manners.\"\n\n\nTO\n\nM. TALLEYRAND PERIGORD,\n\nLATE BISHOP OF AUTUN.\n\nSir:--\n\nHaving read with great pleasure a pamphlet, which you have lately\npublished, on National Education, I dedicate this volume to you,\nthe first dedication that I have ever written, to induce you to\nread it with attention; and, because I think that you will\nunderstand me, which I do not suppose many pert witlings will, who\nmay ridicule the arguments they are unable to answer.  But, sir, I\ncarry my respect for your understanding still farther:  so far,\nthat I am confident you will not throw my work aside, and hastily\nconclude that I am in the wrong because you did not view the\nsubject in the same light yourself.  And pardon my frankness, but I\nmust observe, that you treated it in too cursory a manner,\ncontented to consider it as it had been considered formerly, when\nthe rights of man, not to advert to woman, were trampled on as\nchimerical.  I call upon you, therefore, now to weigh what I have\nadvanced respecting the rights of woman, and national education;\nand I call with the firm tone of humanity.  For my arguments, sir,\nare dictated by a disinterested spirit:  I plead for my sex, not\nfor myself.  Independence I have long considered as the grand\nblessing of life, the basis of every virtue; and independence I\nwill ever secure by contracting my wants, though I were to live on\na barren heath.\n\nIt is, then, an affection for the whole human race that makes my\npen dart rapidly along to support what I believe to be the cause of\nvirtue:  and the same motive leads me earnestly to wish to see\nwoman placed in a station in which she would advance, instead of\nretarding, the progress of those glorious principles that give a\nsubstance to morality.  My opinion, indeed, respecting the rights\nand duties of woman, seems to flow so naturally from these simple\nprinciples, that I think it scarcely possible, but that some of the\nenlarged minds who formed your admirable constitution, will\ncoincide with me.\n\nIn France, there is undoubtedly a more general diffusion of\nknowledge than in any part of the European world, and I attribute\nit, in a great measure, to the social intercourse which has long\nsubsisted between the sexes.  It is true, I utter my sentiments\nwith freedom, that in France the very essence of sensuality has\nbeen extracted to regale the voluptuary, and a kind of sentimental\nlust has prevailed, which, together with the system of duplicity\nthat the whole tenor of their political and civil government\ntaught, have given a sinister sort of sagacity to the French\ncharacter, properly termed finesse; and a polish of manners that\ninjures the substance, by hunting sincerity out of society.  And,\nmodesty, the fairest garb of virtue has been more grossly insulted\nin France than even in England, till their women have treated as\nPRUDISH that attention to decency which brutes instinctively\nobserve.\n\nManners and morals are so nearly allied, that they have often been\nconfounded; but, though the former should only be the natural\nreflection of the latter, yet, when various causes have produced\nfactitious and corrupt manners, which are very early caught,\nmorality becomes an empty name.  The personal reserve, and sacred\nrespect for cleanliness and delicacy in domestic life, which French\nwomen almost despise, are the graceful pillars of modesty; but, far\nfrom despising them, if the pure flame of patriotism have reached\ntheir bosoms, they should labour to improve the morals of their\nfellow-citizens, by teaching men, not only to respect modesty in\nwomen, but to acquire it themselves, as the only way to merit their\nesteem.\n\nContending for the rights of women, my main argument is built on\nthis simple principle, that if she be not prepared by education to\nbecome the companion of man, she will stop the progress of\nknowledge, for truth must be common to all, or it will be\ninefficacious with respect to its influence on general practice.\nAnd how can woman be expected to co-operate, unless she know why\nshe ought to be virtuous?  Unless freedom strengthen her reason\ntill she comprehend her duty, and see in what manner it is\nconnected with her real good?  If children are to be educated to\nunderstand the true principle of patriotism, their mother must be a\npatriot; and the love of mankind, from which an orderly train of\nvirtues spring, can only be produced by considering the moral and\ncivil interest of mankind; but the education and situation of\nwoman, at present, shuts her out from such investigations.\n\nIn this work I have produced many arguments, which to me were\nconclusive, to prove, that the prevailing notion respecting a\nsexual character was subversive of morality, and I have contended,\nthat to render the human body and mind more perfect, chastity must\nmore universally prevail, and that chastity will never be respected\nin the male world till the person of a woman is not, as it were,\nidolized when little virtue or sense embellish it with the grand\ntraces of mental beauty, or the interesting simplicity of\naffection.\n\nConsider, Sir, dispassionately, these observations, for a glimpse\nof this truth seemed to open before you when you observed, \"that to\nsee one half of the human race excluded by the other from all\nparticipation of government, was a political phenomenon that,\naccording to abstract principles, it was impossible to explain.\"\nIf so, on what does your constitution rest?  If the abstract rights\nof man will bear discussion and explanation, those of woman, by a\nparity of reasoning, will not shrink from the same test: though a\ndifferent opinion prevails in this country, built on the very\narguments which you use to justify the oppression of woman,\nprescription.\n\nConsider, I address you as a legislator, whether, when men contend\nfor their freedom, and to be allowed to judge for themselves,\nrespecting their own happiness, it be not inconsistent and unjust\nto subjugate women, even though you firmly believe that you are\nacting in the manner best calculated to promote their happiness?\nWho made man the exclusive judge, if woman partake with him the\ngift of reason?\n\nIn this style, argue tyrants of every denomination from the weak\nking to the weak father of a family; they are all eager to crush\nreason; yet always assert that they usurp its throne only to be\nuseful.  Do you not act a similar part, when you FORCE all women,\nby denying them civil and political rights, to remain immured in\ntheir families groping in the dark? For surely, sir, you will not\nassert, that a duty can be binding which is not founded on reason?\nIf, indeed, this be their destination, arguments may be drawn from\nreason; and thus augustly supported, the more understanding women\nacquire, the more they will be attached to their duty,\ncomprehending it, for unless they comprehend it, unless their\nmorals be fixed on the same immutable principles as those of man,\nno authority can make them discharge it in a virtuous manner.  They\nmay be convenient slaves, but slavery will have its constant\neffect, degrading the master and the abject dependent.\n\nBut, if women are to be excluded, without having a voice, from a\nparticipation of the natural rights of mankind, prove first, to\nward off the charge of injustice and inconsistency, that they want\nreason, else this flaw in your NEW CONSTITUTION, the first\nconstitution founded on reason, will ever show that man must, in\nsome shape, act like a tyrant, and tyranny, in whatever part of\nsociety it rears its brazen front, will ever undermine morality.\n\nI have repeatedly asserted, and produced what appeared to me\nirrefragable arguments drawn from matters of fact, to prove my\nassertion, that women cannot, by force, be confined to domestic\nconcerns; for they will however ignorant, intermeddle with more\nweighty affairs, neglecting private duties only to disturb, by\ncunning tricks, the orderly plans of reason which rise above their\ncomprehension.\n\nBesides, whilst they are only made to acquire personal\naccomplishments, men will seek for pleasure in variety, and\nfaithless husbands will make faithless wives; such ignorant beings,\nindeed, will be very excusable when, not taught to respect public\ngood, nor allowed any civil right, they attempt to do themselves\njustice by retaliation.\n\nThe box of mischief thus opened in society, what is to preserve\nprivate virtue, the only security of public freedom and universal\nhappiness?\n\nLet there be then no coercion ESTABLISHED in society, and the\ncommon law of gravity prevailing, the sexes will fall into their\nproper places.  And, now that more equitable laws are forming your\ncitizens, marriage may become more sacred; your young men may\nchoose wives from motives of affection, and your maidens allow love\nto root out vanity.\n\nThe father of a family will not then weaken his constitution and\ndebase his sentiments, by visiting the harlot, nor forget, in\nobeying the call of appetite, the purpose for which it was\nimplanted; and the mother will not neglect her children to practise\nthe arts of coquetry, when sense and modesty secure her the\nfriendship of her husband.\n\nBut, till men become attentive to the duty of a father, it is vain\nto expect women to spend that time in their nursery which they,\n\"wise in their generation,\" choose to spend at their glass; for\nthis exertion of cunning is only an instinct of nature to enable\nthem to obtain indirectly a little of that power of which they are\nunjustly denied a share; for, if women are not permitted to enjoy\nlegitimate rights, they will render both men and themselves\nvicious, to obtain illicit privileges.\n\nI wish, sir, to set some investigations of this kind afloat in\nFrance; and should they lead to a confirmation of my principles,\nwhen your constitution is revised, the rights of woman may be\nrespected, if it be fully proved that reason calls for this\nrespect, and loudly demands JUSTICE for one half of the human race.\n\nI am, sir,\n\nYours respectfully,\n\nM. W.\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\nAfter considering the historic page, and viewing the living world\nwith anxious solicitude, the most melancholy emotions of sorrowful\nindignation have depressed my spirits, and I have sighed when\nobliged to confess, that either nature has made a great difference\nbetween man and man, or that the civilization, which has hitherto\ntaken place in the world, has been very partial.  I have turned\nover various books written on the subject of education, and\npatiently observed the conduct of parents and the management of\nschools; but what has been the result? a profound conviction, that\nthe neglected education of my fellow creatures is the grand source\nof the misery I deplore; and that women in particular, are rendered\nweak and wretched by a variety of concurring causes, originating\nfrom one hasty conclusion.  The conduct and manners of women, in\nfact, evidently prove, that their minds are not in a healthy state;\nfor, like the flowers that  are planted in too rich a soil,\nstrength and usefulness are sacrificed to beauty; and the flaunting\nleaves, after having pleased a fastidious eye, fade, disregarded on\nthe stalk, long before the season when they ought to have arrived\nat maturity.  One cause of this barren blooming I attribute to a\nfalse system of education, gathered from the books written on this\nsubject by men, who, considering females rather as women than human\ncreatures, have been more anxious to make them alluring mistresses\nthan rational wives; and the understanding of the sex has been so\nbubbled by this specious homage, that the civilized women of the\npresent century, with a few exceptions, are only anxious to inspire\nlove, when they ought to cherish a nobler ambition, and by their\nabilities and virtues exact respect.\n\nIn a treatise, therefore, on female rights and manners, the works\nwhich have been particularly written for their improvement must not\nbe overlooked; especially when it is asserted, in direct terms,\nthat the minds of women are enfeebled by false refinement; that the\nbooks of instruction, written by men of genius, have had the same\ntendency as more frivolous productions; and that, in the true style\nof Mahometanism, they are only considered as females, and not as a\npart of the human species, when improvable reason is allowed to be\nthe dignified distinction, which raises men above the brute\ncreation, and puts a natural sceptre in a feeble hand.\n\nYet, because I am a woman, I would not lead my readers to suppose,\nthat I mean violently to agitate the contested question respecting\nthe equality and inferiority of the sex; but as the subject lies in\nmy way, and I cannot pass it over without subjecting the main\ntendency of my reasoning to misconstruction, I shall stop a moment\nto deliver, in a few words, my opinion.  In the government of the\nphysical world, it is observable that the female, in general, is\ninferior to the male.  The male pursues, the female yields--this is\nthe law of nature; and it does not appear to be suspended or\nabrogated in favour of woman.  This physical superiority cannot be\ndenied--and it is a noble prerogative!  But not content with this\nnatural pre-eminence, men endeavour to sink us still lower, merely\nto render us alluring objects for a moment; and women, intoxicated\nby the adoration which men, under the influence of their senses,\npay them, do not seek to obtain a durable interest in their hearts,\nor to become the friends of the fellow creatures who find amusement\nin their society.\n\nI am aware of an obvious inference: from every quarter have I heard\nexclamations against masculine women; but where are they to be\nfound?  If, by this appellation, men mean to inveigh against their\nardour in hunting, shooting, and gaming, I shall most cordially\njoin in the cry; but if it be, against the imitation of manly\nvirtues, or, more properly speaking, the attainment of those\ntalents and virtues, the exercise of which ennobles the human\ncharacter, and which raise females in the scale of animal being,\nwhen they are comprehensively termed mankind--all those who view\nthem with a philosophical eye must, I should think, wish with me,\nthat they may every day grow more and more masculine.\n\nThis discussion naturally divides the subject.  I shall first\nconsider women in the grand light of human creatures, who, in\ncommon with men, are placed on this earth to unfold their\nfaculties; and afterwards I shall more particularly point out their\npeculiar designation.\n\nI wish also to steer clear of an error, which many respectable\nwriters have fallen into; for the instruction which has hitherto\nbeen addressed to women, has rather been applicable to LADIES, if\nthe little indirect advice, that is scattered through Sandford and\nMerton, be excepted; but, addressing my sex in a firmer tone, I pay\nparticular attention to those in the middle class, because they\nappear to be in the most natural state.  Perhaps the seeds of false\nrefinement, immorality, and vanity have ever been shed by the\ngreat.  Weak, artificial beings raised above the common wants and\naffections of their race, in a premature unnatural manner,\nundermine the very foundation of virtue, and spread corruption\nthrough the whole mass of society!  As a class of mankind they have\nthe strongest claim to pity! the education of the rich tends to\nrender them vain and helpless, and the unfolding mind is not\nstrengthened by the practice of those duties which dignify the\nhuman character.  They only live to amuse themselves, and by the\nsame law which in nature invariably produces certain effects, they\nsoon only afford barren amusement.\n\nBut as I purpose taking a separate view of the different ranks of\nsociety, and of the moral character of women, in each, this hint\nis, for the present, sufficient; and I have only alluded to the\nsubject, because it appears to me to be the very essence of an\nintroduction to give a cursory account of the contents of the work\nit introduces.\n\nMy own sex, I hope, will excuse me, if I treat them like rational\ncreatures, instead of flattering their FASCINATING graces, and\nviewing them as if they were in a state of perpetual childhood,\nunable to stand alone.  I earnestly wish to point out in what true\ndignity and human happiness consists--I wish to persuade women to\nendeavour to acquire strength, both of mind and body, and to\nconvince them, that the soft phrases, susceptibility of heart,\ndelicacy of sentiment, and refinement of taste, are almost\nsynonymous with epithets of weakness, and that those beings who are\nonly the objects of pity and that kind of love, which has been\ntermed its sister, will soon become objects of contempt.\n\nDismissing then those pretty feminine phrases, which the men\ncondescendingly use to soften our slavish dependence, and despising\nthat weak elegancy of mind, exquisite sensibility, and sweet\ndocility of manners, supposed to be the sexual characteristics of\nthe weaker vessel, I wish to show that elegance is inferior to\nvirtue, that the first object of laudable ambition is to obtain a\ncharacter as a human being, regardless of the distinction of sex;\nand that secondary views should be brought to this simple\ntouchstone.\n\nThis is a rough sketch of my plan; and should I express my\nconviction with the energetic emotions that I feel whenever I think\nof the subject, the dictates of experience and reflection will be\nfelt by some of my readers.  Animated by this important object, I\nshall disdain to cull my phrases or polish my style--I aim at being\nuseful, and sincerity will render me unaffected; for wishing rather\nto persuade by the force of my arguments, than dazzle by the\nelegance of my language, I shall not waste my time in rounding\nperiods, nor in fabricating the turgid bombast of artificial\nfeelings, which, coming from the head, never reach the heart.  I\nshall be employed about things, not words! and, anxious to render\nmy sex more respectable members of society, I shall try to avoid\nthat flowery diction which has slided from essays into novels, and\nfrom novels into familiar letters and conversation.\n\nThese pretty nothings, these caricatures of the real beauty of\nsensibility, dropping glibly from the tongue, vitiate the taste,\nand create a kind of sickly delicacy that turns away from simple\nunadorned truth; and a deluge of false sentiments and\nover-stretched feelings, stifling the natural emotions of the\nheart, render the domestic pleasures insipid, that ought to sweeten\nthe exercise of those severe duties, which educate a rational and\nimmortal being for a nobler field of action.\n\nThe education of women has, of late, been more attended to than\nformerly; yet they are still reckoned a frivolous sex, and\nridiculed or pitied by the writers who endeavour by satire or\ninstruction to improve them.  It is acknowledged that they spend\nmany of the first years of their lives in acquiring a smattering of\naccomplishments:  meanwhile, strength of body and mind are\nsacrificed to libertine notions of beauty, to the desire of\nestablishing themselves, the only way women can rise in the\nworld--by marriage.  And this desire making mere animals of them,\nwhen they marry, they act as such children may be expected to act:\nthey dress; they paint, and nickname God's creatures.  Surely these\nweak beings are only fit for the seraglio!  Can they govern a\nfamily, or take care of the poor babes whom they bring into the\nworld?\n\nIf then it can be fairly deduced from the present conduct of the\nsex, from the prevalent fondness for pleasure, which takes place of\nambition and those nobler passions that open and enlarge the soul;\nthat the instruction which women have received has only tended,\nwith the constitution of civil society, to render them\ninsignificant objects of desire; mere propagators of fools! if it\ncan be proved, that in aiming to accomplish them, without\ncultivating their understandings, they are taken out of their\nsphere of duties, and made ridiculous and useless when the short\nlived bloom of beauty is over*, I presume that RATIONAL men will\nexcuse me for endeavouring to persuade them to become more\nmasculine and respectable.\n\n(*Footnote.  A lively writer, I cannot recollect his name, asks\nwhat business women turned of forty have to do in the world.)\n\nIndeed the word masculine is only a bugbear:  there is little\nreason to fear that women will acquire too much courage or\nfortitude; for their apparent inferiority with respect to bodily\nstrength, must render them, in some degree, dependent on men in the\nvarious relations of life; but why should it be increased by\nprejudices that give a sex to virtue, and confound simple truths\nwith sensual reveries?\n\nWomen are, in fact, so much degraded by mistaken notions of female\nexcellence, that I do not mean to add a paradox when I assert, that\nthis artificial weakness produces a propensity to tyrannize, and\ngives birth to cunning, the natural opponent of strength, which\nleads them to play off those contemptible infantile airs that\nundermine esteem even whilst they excite desire.  Do not foster\nthese prejudices, and they will naturally fall into their\nsubordinate, yet respectable station in life.\n\nIt seems scarcely necessary to say, that I now speak of the sex in\ngeneral.  Many individuals have more sense than their male\nrelatives; and, as nothing preponderates where there is a constant\nstruggle for an equilibrium, without it has naturally more gravity,\nsome women govern their husbands without degrading themselves,\nbecause intellect will always govern.\n\n\nVINDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OF WOMAN.\n\n\nCHAPTER 1.\n\nTHE RIGHTS AND INVOLVED DUTIES OF MANKIND CONSIDERED.\n\nIn the present state of society, it appears necessary to go back to\nfirst principles in search of the most simple truths, and to\ndispute with some prevailing prejudice every inch of ground.  To\nclear my way, I must be allowed to ask some plain questions, and\nthe answers will probably appear as unequivocal as the axioms on\nwhich reasoning is built; though, when entangled with various\nmotives of action, they are formally contradicted, either by the\nwords or conduct of men.\n\nIn what does man's pre-eminence over the brute creation consist?\nThe answer is as clear as that a half is less than the whole; in\nReason.\n\nWhat acquirement exalts one being above another?  Virtue; we\nspontaneously reply.\n\nFor what purpose were the passions implanted?  That man by\nstruggling with them might attain a degree of knowledge denied to\nthe brutes:  whispers Experience.\n\nConsequently the perfection of our nature and capability of\nhappiness, must be estimated by the degree of reason, virtue, and\nknowledge, that distinguish the individual, and direct the laws\nwhich bind society:  and that from the exercise of reason,\nknowledge and virtue naturally flow, is equally undeniable, if\nmankind be viewed collectively.\n\nThe rights and duties of man thus simplified, it seems almost\nimpertinent to attempt to illustrate truths that appear so\nincontrovertible:  yet such deeply rooted prejudices have clouded\nreason, and such spurious qualities have assumed the name of\nvirtues, that it is necessary to pursue the course of reason as it\nhas been perplexed and involved in error, by various adventitious\ncircumstances, comparing the simple axiom with casual deviations.\n\nMen, in general, seem to employ their reason to justify prejudices,\nwhich they have imbibed, they cannot trace how, rather than to root\nthem out.  The mind must be strong that resolutely forms its own\nprinciples; for a kind of intellectual cowardice prevails which\nmakes many men shrink from the task, or only do it by halves.  Yet\nthe imperfect conclusions thus drawn, are frequently very\nplausible, because they are built on partial experience, on just,\nthough narrow, views.\n\nGoing back to first principles, vice skulks, with all its native\ndeformity, from close investigation; but a set of shallow reasoners\nare always exclaiming that these arguments prove too much, and that\na measure rotten at the core may be expedient.  Thus expediency is\ncontinually contrasted with simple principles, till truth is lost\nin a mist of words, virtue in forms, and knowledge rendered a\nsounding nothing, by the specious prejudices that assume its name.\n\nThat the society is formed in the wisest manner, whose constitution\nis founded on the nature of man, strikes, in the abstract, every\nthinking being so forcibly, that it looks like presumption to\nendeavour to bring forward proofs; though proof must be brought, or\nthe strong hold of prescription will never be forced by reason; yet\nto urge prescription as an argument to justify the depriving men\n(or women) of their natural rights, is one of the absurd sophisms\nwhich daily insult common sense.\n\nThe civilization of the bulk of the people of Europe, is very\npartial; nay, it may be made a question, whether they have acquired\nany virtues in exchange for innocence, equivalent to the misery\nproduced by the vices that have been plastered over unsightly\nignorance, and the freedom which has been bartered for splendid\nslavery.  The desire of dazzling by riches, the most certain\npre-eminence that man can obtain, the pleasure of commanding\nflattering sycophants, and many other complicated low calculations\nof doting self-love, have all contributed to overwhelm the mass of\nmankind, and make liberty a convenient handle for mock patriotism.\nFor whilst rank and titles are held of the utmost importance,\nbefore which Genius \"must hide its diminished head,\" it is, with a\nfew exceptions, very unfortunate for a nation when a man of\nabilities, without rank or property, pushes himself forward to\nnotice.  Alas! what unheard of misery have thousands suffered to\npurchase a cardinal's hat for an intriguing obscure adventurer, who\nlonged to be ranked with princes, or lord it over them by seizing\nthe triple crown!\n\nSuch, indeed, has been the wretchedness that has flowed from\nhereditary honours, riches, and monarchy, that men of lively\nsensibility have almost uttered blasphemy in order to justify the\ndispensations of providence.  Man has been held out as independent\nof his power who made him, or as a lawless planet darting from its\norbit to steal the celestial fire of reason; and the vengeance of\nheaven, lurking in the subtile flame, sufficiently punished his\ntemerity, by introducing evil into the world.\n\nImpressed by this view of the misery and disorder which pervaded\nsociety, and fatigued with jostling against artificial fools,\nRousseau became enamoured of solitude, and, being at the same time\nan optimist, he labours with uncommon eloquence to prove that man\nwas naturally a solitary animal.  Misled by his respect for the\ngoodness of God, who certainly for what man of sense and feeling\ncan doubt it! gave life only to communicate happiness, he considers\nevil as positive, and the work of man; not aware that he was\nexalting one attribute at the expense of another, equally necessary\nto divine perfection.\n\nReared on a false hypothesis, his arguments in favour of a state of\nnature are plausible, but unsound.  I say unsound; for to assert\nthat a state of nature is preferable to civilization in all its\npossible perfection, is, in other words, to arraign supreme wisdom;\nand the paradoxical exclamation, that God has made all things\nright, and that evil has been introduced by the creature whom he\nformed, knowing what he formed, is as unphilosophical as impious.\n\nWhen that wise Being, who created us and placed us here, saw the\nfair idea, he willed, by allowing it to be so, that the passions\nshould unfold our reason, because he could see that present evil\nwould produce future good.  Could the helpless creature whom he\ncalled from nothing, break loose from his providence, and boldly\nlearn to know good by practising evil without his permission?  No.\nHow could that energetic advocate for immortality argue so\ninconsistently?  Had mankind remained for ever in the brutal state\nof nature, which even his magic pen cannot paint as a state in\nwhich a single virtue took root, it would have been clear, though\nnot to the sensitive unreflecting wanderer, that man was born to\nrun the circle of life and death, and adorn God's garden for some\npurpose which could not easily be reconciled with his attributes.\n\nBut if, to crown the whole, there were to be rational creatures\nproduced, allowed to rise in excellency by the exercise of powers\nimplanted for that purpose; if benignity itself thought fit to call\ninto existence a creature above the brutes, who could think and\nimprove himself, why should that inestimable gift, for a gift it\nwas, if a man was so created as to have a capacity to rise above\nthe state in which sensation produced brutal ease, be called, in\ndirect terms, a curse?  A curse it might be reckoned, if all our\nexistence was bounded by our continuance in this world; for why\nshould the gracious fountain of life give us passions, and the\npower of reflecting, only to embitter our days, and inspire us with\nmistaken notions of dignity?  Why should he lead us from love of\nourselves to the sublime emotions which the discovery of his wisdom\nand goodness excites, if these feelings were not set in motion to\nimprove our nature, of which they make a part, and render us\ncapable of enjoying a more godlike portion of happiness?  Firmly\npersuaded that no evil exists in the world that God did not design\nto take place, I build my belief on the perfection of God.\n\nRousseau exerts himself to prove, that all WAS right originally:  a\ncrowd of authors that all IS now right:  and I, that all WILL BE\nright.\n\nBut, true to his first position, next to a state of nature,\nRousseau celebrates barbarism, and, apostrophizing the shade of\nFabricius, he forgets that, in conquering the world, the Romans\nnever dreamed of establishing their own liberty on a firm basis, or\nof extending the reign of virtue.  Eager to support his system, he\nstigmatizes, as vicious, every effort of genius; and uttering the\napotheosis of savage virtues, he exalts those to demigods, who were\nscarcely human--the brutal Spartans, who in defiance of justice and\ngratitude, sacrificed, in cold blood, the slaves that had shown\nthemselves men to rescue their oppressors.\n\nDisgusted with artificial manners and virtues, the citizen of\nGeneva, instead of properly sifting the subject, threw away the\nwheat with the chaff, without waiting to inquire whether the evils,\nwhich his ardent soul turned from indignantly, were the consequence\nof civilization, or the vestiges of barbarism.  He saw vice\ntrampling on virtue, and the semblance of goodness taking place of\nthe reality; he saw talents bent by power to sinister purposes, and\nnever thought of tracing the gigantic mischief up to arbitrary\npower, up to the hereditary distinctions that clash with the mental\nsuperiority that naturally raises a man above his fellows.  He did\nnot perceive, that the regal power, in a few generations,\nintroduces idiotism into the noble stem, and holds out baits to\nrender thousands idle and vicious.\n\nNothing can set the regal character in a more contemptible point of\nview, than the various crimes that have elevated men to the supreme\ndignity.  Vile intrigues, unnatural crimes, and every vice that\ndegrades our nature, have been the steps to this distinguished\neminence; yet millions of men have supinely allowed the nerveless\nlimbs of the posterity of such rapacious prowlers, to rest quietly\non their ensanguined thrones.\n\nWhat but a pestilential vapour can hover over society, when its\nchief director is only instructed in the invention of crimes, or\nthe stupid routine of childish ceremonies?  Will men never be wise?\nwill they never cease to expect corn from tares, and figs from\nthistles?\n\nIt is impossible for any man, when the most favourable\ncircumstances concur, to acquire sufficient knowledge and strength\nof mind to discharge the duties of a king, entrusted with\nuncontrolled power; how then must they be violated when his very\nelevation is an insuperable bar to the attainment of either wisdom\nor virtue; when all the feelings of a man are stifled by flattery,\nand reflection shut out by pleasure!  Surely it is madness to make\nthe fate of thousands depend on the caprice of a weak fellow\ncreature, whose very station sinks him NECESSARILY below the\nmeanest of his subjects!  But one power should not be thrown down\nto exalt another--for all power intoxicates weak man; and its abuse\nproves, that the more equality there is established among men, the\nmore virtue and happiness will reign in society.  But this, and any\nsimilar maxim deduced from simple reason, raises an outcry--the\nchurch or the state is in danger, if faith in the wisdom of\nantiquity is not implicit; and they who, roused by the sight of\nhuman calamity, dare to attack human authority, are reviled as\ndespisers of God, and enemies of man.  These are bitter calumnies,\nyet they reached one of the best of men, (Dr. Price.) whose ashes\nstill preach peace, and whose memory demands a respectful pause,\nwhen subjects are discussed that lay so near his heart.\n\nAfter attacking the sacred majesty of kings, I shall scarcely\nexcite surprise, by adding my firm persuasion, that every\nprofession, in which great subordination of rank constitutes its\npower, is highly injurious to morality.\n\nA standing army, for instance, is incompatible with freedom;\nbecause subordination and rigour are the very sinews of military\ndiscipline; and despotism is necessary to give vigour to\nenterprises that one will directs.  A spirit inspired by romantic\nnotions of honour, a kind of morality founded on the fashion of the\nage, can only be felt by a few officers, whilst the main body must\nbe moved by command, like the waves of the sea; for the strong wind\nof authority pushes the crowd of subalterns forward, they scarcely\nknow or care why, with headlong fury.\n\nBesides, nothing can be so prejudicial to the morals of the\ninhabitants of country towns, as the occasional residence of a set\nof idle superficial young men, whose only occupation is gallantry,\nand whose polished manners render vice more dangerous, by\nconcealing its deformity under gay ornamental drapery.  An air of\nfashion, which is but a badge of slavery, and proves that the soul\nhas not a strong individual character, awes simple country people\ninto an imitation of the vices, when they cannot catch the slippery\ngraces of politeness.  Every corps is a chain of despots, who,\nsubmitting and tyrannizing without exercising their reason, become\ndead weights of vice and folly on the community.  A man of rank or\nfortune, sure of rising by interest, has nothing to do but to\npursue some extravagant freak; whilst the needy GENTLEMAN, who is\nto rise, as the phrase turns, by his merit, becomes a servile\nparasite or vile pander.\n\nSailors, the naval gentlemen, come under the same description, only\ntheir vices assume a different and a grosser cast.  They are more\npositively indolent, when not discharging the ceremonials of their\nstation; whilst the insignificant fluttering of soldiers may be\ntermed active idleness.  More confined to the society of men, the\nformer acquire a fondness for humour and mischievous tricks; whilst\nthe latter, mixing frequently with well-bred women, catch a\nsentimental cant.  But mind is equally out of the question, whether\nthey indulge the horse-laugh or polite simper.\n\nMay I be allowed to extend the comparison to a profession where\nmore mind is certainly to be found; for the clergy have superior\nopportunities of improvement, though subordination almost equally\ncramps their faculties? The blind submission imposed at college to\nforms of belief, serves as a noviciate to the curate who most\nobsequiously respects the opinion of his rector or patron, if he\nmeans to rise in his profession.  Perhaps there cannot be a more\nforcible contrast than between the servile, dependent gait of a\npoor curate, and the courtly mien of a bishop.  And the respect and\ncontempt they inspire render the discharge of their separate\nfunctions equally useless.\n\nIt is of great importance to observe, that the character of every\nman is, in some degree, formed by his profession.  A man of sense\nmay only have a cast of countenance that wears off as you trace his\nindividuality, whilst the weak, common man, has scarcely ever any\ncharacter, but what belongs to the body; at least, all his opinions\nhave been so steeped in the vat consecrated by authority, that the\nfaint spirit which the grape of his own vine yields cannot be\ndistinguished.\n\nSociety, therefore, as it becomes more enlightened, should be very\ncareful not to establish bodies of men who must necessarily be made\nfoolish or vicious by the very constitution of their profession.\n\nIn the infancy of society, when men were just emerging out of\nbarbarism, chiefs and priests, touching the most powerful springs\nof savage conduct--hope and fear--must have had unbounded sway.  An\naristocracy, of course, is naturally the first form of government.\nBut clashing interests soon losing their equipoise, a monarchy and\nhierarchy break out of the confusion of ambitious struggles, and\nthe foundation of both is secured by feudal tenures.  This appears\nto be the origin of monarchial and priestly power, and the dawn of\ncivilization.  But such combustible materials cannot long be pent\nup; and getting vent in foreign wars and intestine insurrections,\nthe people acquire some power in the tumult, which obliges their\nrulers to gloss over their oppression with a show of right.  Thus,\nas wars, agriculture, commerce, and literature, expands the mind,\ndespots are compelled, to make covert corruption hold fast the\npower which was formerly snatched by open force.*  And this baneful\nlurking gangrene is most quickly spread by luxury and superstition,\nthe sure dregs of ambition.  The indolent puppet of a court first\nbecomes a luxurious monster, or fastidious sensualist, and then\nmakes the contagion which his unnatural state spreads, the\ninstrument of tyranny.\n\n(*Footnote.  Men of abilities scatter seeds that grow up, and have\na great influence on the forming opinion; and when once the public\nopinion preponderates, through the exertion of reason, the\noverthrow of arbitrary power is not very distant.)\n\nIt is the pestiferous purple which renders the progress of\ncivilization a curse, and warps the understanding, till men of\nsensibility doubt whether the expansion of intellect produces a\ngreater portion of happiness or misery.  But the nature of the\npoison points out the antidote; and had Rousseau mounted one step\nhigher in his investigation; or could his eye have pierced through\nthe foggy atmosphere, which he almost disdained to breathe, his\nactive mind would have darted forward to contemplate the perfection\nof man in the establishment of true civilization, instead of taking\nhis ferocious flight back to the night of sensual ignorance.\n\n\nCHAPTER 2.\n\nTHE PREVAILING OPINION OF A SEXUAL CHARACTER DISCUSSED.\n\nTo account for, and excuse the tyranny of man, many ingenious\narguments have been brought forward to prove, that the two sexes,\nin the acquirement of virtue, ought to aim at attaining a very\ndifferent character:  or, to speak explicitly, women are not\nallowed to have sufficient strength of mind to acquire what really\ndeserves the name of virtue.  Yet it should seem, allowing them to\nhave souls, that there is but one way appointed by providence to\nlead MANKIND to either virtue or happiness.\n\nIf then women are not a swarm of ephemeron triflers, why should\nthey be kept in ignorance under the specious name of innocence?\nMen complain, and with reason, of the follies and caprices of our\nsex, when they do not keenly satirize our headstrong passions and\ngroveling vices.  Behold, I should answer, the natural effect of\nignorance!  The mind will ever be unstable that has only prejudices\nto rest on, and the current will run with destructive fury when\nthere are no barriers to break its force.  Women are told from\ntheir infancy, and taught by the example of their mothers, that a\nlittle knowledge of human weakness, justly termed cunning, softness\nof temper, OUTWARD obedience, and a scrupulous attention to a\npuerile kind of propriety, will obtain for them the protection of\nman; and should they be beautiful, every thing else is needless,\nfor at least twenty years of their lives.\n\nThus Milton describes our first frail mother; though when he tells\nus that women are formed for softness and sweet attractive grace, I\ncannot comprehend his meaning, unless, in the true Mahometan\nstrain, he meant to deprive us of souls, and insinuate that we were\nbeings only designed by sweet attractive grace, and docile blind\nobedience, to gratify the senses of man when he can no longer soar\non the wing of contemplation.\n\nHow grossly do they insult us, who thus advise us only to render\nourselves gentle, domestic brutes!  For instance, the winning\nsoftness, so warmly, and frequently recommended, that governs by\nobeying.  What childish expressions, and how insignificant is the\nbeing--can it be an immortal one?  who will condescend to govern by\nsuch sinister methods!  \"Certainly,\" says Lord Bacon, \"man is of\nkin to the beasts by his body: and if he be not of kin to God by\nhis spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature!\"  Men, indeed,\nappear to me to act in a very unphilosophical manner, when they try\nto secure the good conduct of women by attempting to keep them\nalways in a state of childhood.  Rousseau was more consistent when\nhe wished to stop the progress of reason in both sexes; for if men\neat of the tree of knowledge, women will come in for a taste:  but,\nfrom the imperfect cultivation which their understandings now\nreceive, they only attain a knowledge of evil.\n\nChildren, I grant, should be innocent; but when the epithet is\napplied to men, or women, it is but a civil term for weakness.  For\nif it be allowed that women were destined by Providence to acquire\nhuman virtues, and by the exercise of their understandings, that\nstability of character which is the firmest ground to rest our\nfuture hopes upon, they must be permitted to turn to the fountain\nof light, and not forced to shape their course by the twinkling of\na mere satellite.  Milton, I grant, was of a very different\nopinion; for he only bends to the indefeasible right of beauty,\nthough it would be difficult to render two passages, which I now\nmean to contrast, consistent:  but into similar inconsistencies are\ngreat men often led by their senses:--\n\n\"To whom thus Eve with perfect beauty adorned:\nMy author and disposer, what thou bidst\nUnargued I obey; so God ordains;\nGod is thy law, thou mine; to know no more\nIs woman's happiest knowledge and her praise.\"\n\nThese are exactly the arguments that I have used to children; but I\nhave added, \"Your reason is now gaining strength, and, till it\narrives at some degree of maturity, you must look up to me for\nadvice:  then you ought to THINK, and only rely on God.\"\n\nYet, in the following lines, Milton seems to coincide with me, when\nhe makes Adam thus expostulate with his Maker:--\n\n\"Hast thou not made me here thy substitute,\nAnd these inferior far beneath me set?\nAmong unequals what society\nCan sort, what harmony or delight?\nWhich must be mutual, in proportion due\nGiven and received; but in disparity\nThe one intense, the other still remiss\nCannot well suit with either, but soon prove\nTedious alike:  of fellowship I speak\nSuch as I seek fit to participate\nAll rational delight.\"\n\nIn treating, therefore, of the manners of women, let us,\ndisregarding sensual arguments, trace what we should endeavour to\nmake them in order to co-operate, if the expression be not too\nbold, with the Supreme Being.\n\nBy individual education, I mean--for the sense of the word is not\nprecisely defined--such an attention to a child as will slowly\nsharpen the senses, form the temper, regulate the passions, as they\nbegin to ferment, and set the understanding to work before the body\narrives at maturity; so that the man may only have to proceed, not\nto begin, the important task of learning to think and reason.\n\nTo prevent any misconstruction, I must add, that I do not believe\nthat a private education can work the wonders which some sanguine\nwriters have attributed to it.  Men and women must be educated, in\na great degree, by the opinions and manners of the society they\nlive in.  In every age there has been a stream of popular opinion\nthat has carried all before it, and given a family character, as it\nwere, to the century.  It may then fairly be inferred, that, till\nsociety be differently constituted, much cannot be expected from\neducation.  It is, however, sufficient for my present purpose to\nassert, that, whatever effect circumstances have on the abilities,\nevery being may become virtuous by the exercise of its own reason;\nfor if but one being was created with vicious inclinations--that\nis, positively bad-- what can save us from atheism? or if we\nworship a God, is not that God a devil?\n\nConsequently, the most perfect education, in my opinion, is such an\nexercise of the understanding as is best calculated to strengthen\nthe body and form the heart; or, in other words, to enable the\nindividual to attain such habits of virtue as will render it\nindependent.  In fact, it is a farce to call any being virtuous\nwhose virtues do not result from the exercise of its own reason.\nThis was Rousseau's opinion respecting men:  I extend it to women,\nand confidently assert that they have been drawn out of their\nsphere by false refinement, and not by an endeavour to acquire\nmasculine qualities.  Still the regal homage which they receive is\nso intoxicating, that, till the manners of the times are changed,\nand formed on more reasonable principles, it may be impossible to\nconvince them that the illegitimate power, which they obtain by\ndegrading themselves, is a curse, and that they must return to\nnature and equality, if they wish to secure the placid satisfaction\nthat unsophisticated affections impart.  But for this epoch we must\nwait--wait, perhaps, till kings and nobles, enlightened by reason,\nand, preferring the real dignity of man to childish state, throw\noff their gaudy hereditary trappings; and if then women do not\nresign the arbitrary power of beauty, they will prove that they\nhave LESS mind than man.  I may be accused of arrogance; still I\nmust declare, what I firmly believe, that all the writers who have\nwritten on the subject of female education and manners, from\nRousseau to Dr. Gregory, have contributed to render women more\nartificial, weaker characters, than they would otherwise have been;\nand, consequently, more useless members of society.  I might have\nexpressed this conviction in a lower key; but I am afraid it would\nhave been the whine of affectation, and not the faithful expression\nof my feelings, of the clear result, which experience and\nreflection have led me to draw.  When I come to that division of\nthe subject, I shall advert to the passages that I more\nparticularly disapprove of, in the works of the authors I have just\nalluded to; but it is first necessary to observe, that my objection\nextends to the whole purport of those books, which tend, in my\nopinion, to degrade one half of the human species, and render women\npleasing at the expense of every solid virtue.\n\nThough to reason on Rousseau's ground, if man did attain a degree\nof perfection of mind when his body arrived at maturity, it might\nbe proper in order to make a man and his wife ONE, that she should\nrely entirely on his understanding; and the graceful ivy, clasping\nthe oak that supported it, would form a whole in which strength and\nbeauty would be equally conspicuous.  But, alas! husbands, as well\nas their helpmates, are often only overgrown children; nay, thanks\nto early debauchery, scarcely men in their outward form, and if the\nblind lead the blind, one need not come from heaven to tell us the\nconsequence.\n\nMany are the causes that, in the present corrupt state of society,\ncontribute to enslave women by cramping their understandings and\nsharpening their senses.  One, perhaps, that silently does more\nmischief than all the rest, is their disregard of order.\n\nTo do every thing in an orderly manner, is a most important\nprecept, which women, who, generally speaking, receive only a\ndisorderly kind of education, seldom attend to with that degree of\nexactness that men, who from their infancy are broken into method,\nobserve.  This negligent kind of guesswork, for what other epithet\ncan be used to point out the random exertions of a sort of\ninstinctive common sense, never brought to the test of reason?\nprevents their generalizing matters of fact, so they do to-day,\nwhat they did yesterday, merely because they did it yesterday.\n\nThis contempt of the understanding in early life has more baneful\nconsequences than is commonly supposed; for the little knowledge\nwhich women of strong minds attain, is, from various circumstances,\nof a more desultory kind than the knowledge of men, and it is\nacquired more by sheer observations on real life, than from\ncomparing what has been individually observed with the results of\nexperience generalized by speculation.  Led by their dependent\nsituation and domestic employments more into society, what they\nlearn is rather by snatches; and as learning is with them, in\ngeneral, only a secondary thing, they do not pursue any one branch\nwith that persevering ardour necessary to give vigour to the\nfaculties, and clearness to the judgment.  In the present state of\nsociety, a little learning is required to support the character of\na gentleman; and boys are obliged to submit to a few years of\ndiscipline.  But in the education of women the cultivation of the\nunderstanding is always subordinate to the acquirement of some\ncorporeal accomplishment; even while enervated by confinement and\nfalse notions of modesty, the body is prevented from attaining that\ngrace and beauty which relaxed half-formed limbs never exhibit.\nBesides, in youth their faculties are not brought forward by\nemulation; and having no serious scientific study, if they have\nnatural sagacity it is turned too soon on life and manners.  They\ndwell on effects, and modifications, without tracing them back to\ncauses; and complicated rules to adjust behaviour are a weak\nsubstitute for simple principles.\n\nAs a proof that education gives this appearance of weakness to\nfemales, we may instance the example of military men, who are, like\nthem, sent into the world before their minds have been stored with\nknowledge or fortified by principles.  The consequences are\nsimilar; soldiers acquire a little superficial knowledge, snatched\nfrom the muddy current of conversation, and, from continually\nmixing with society, they gain, what is termed a knowledge of the\nworld; and this acquaintance with manners and customs has\nfrequently been confounded with a knowledge of the human heart.\nBut can the crude fruit of casual observation, never brought to the\ntest of judgment, formed by comparing speculation and experience,\ndeserve such a distinction? Soldiers, as well as women, practice\nthe minor virtues with punctilious politeness.  Where is then the\nsexual difference, when the education has been the same; all the\ndifference that I can discern, arises from the superior advantage\nof liberty which enables the former to see more of life.\n\nIt is wandering from my present subject, perhaps, to make a\npolitical remark; but as it was produced naturally by the train of\nmy reflections, I shall not pass it silently over.\n\nStanding armies can never consist of resolute, robust men; they may\nbe well disciplined machines, but they will seldom contain men\nunder the influence of strong passions or with very vigorous\nfaculties.  And as for any depth of understanding, I will venture\nto affirm, that it is as rarely to be found in the army as amongst\nwomen; and the cause, I maintain, is the same.  It may be further\nobserved, that officers are also particularly attentive to their\npersons, fond of dancing, crowded rooms, adventures, and ridicule.\nLike the FAIR sex, the business of their lives is gallantry.  They\nwere taught to please, and they only live to please.  Yet they do\nnot lose their rank in the distinction of sexes, for they are still\nreckoned superior to women, though in what their superiority\nconsists, beyond what I have just mentioned, it is difficult to\ndiscover.\n\nThe great misfortune is this, that they both acquire manners before\nmorals, and a knowledge of life before they have from reflection,\nany acquaintance with the grand ideal outline of human nature.  The\nconsequence is natural; satisfied with common nature, they become a\nprey to prejudices, and taking all their opinions on credit, they\nblindly submit to authority.  So that if they have any sense, it is\na kind of instinctive glance, that catches proportions, and decides\nwith respect to manners; but fails when arguments are to be pursued\nbelow the surface, or opinions analyzed.\n\nMay not the same remark be applied to women?  Nay, the argument may\nbe carried still further, for they are both thrown out of a useful\nstation by the unnatural distinctions established in civilized\nlife.  Riches and hereditary honours have made cyphers of women to\ngive consequence to the numerical figure; and idleness has produced\na mixture of gallantry and despotism in society, which leads the\nvery men who are the slaves of their mistresses, to tyrannize over\ntheir sisters, wives, and daughters.  This is only keeping them in\nrank and file, it is true.  Strengthen the female mind by enlarging\nit, and there will be an end to blind obedience; but, as blind\nobedience is ever sought for by power, tyrants and sensualists are\nin the right when they endeavour to keep women in the dark, because\nthe former only want slaves, and the latter a play-thing.  The\nsensualist, indeed, has been the most dangerous of tyrants, and\nwomen have been duped by their lovers, as princes by their\nministers, whilst dreaming that they reigned over them.\n\nI now principally allude to Rousseau, for his character of Sophia\nis, undoubtedly, a captivating one, though it appears to me grossly\nunnatural; however, it is not the superstructure, but the\nfoundation of her character, the principles on which her education\nwas built, that I mean to attack; nay, warmly as I admire the\ngenius of that able writer, whose opinions I shall often have\noccasion to cite, indignation always takes place of admiration, and\nthe rigid frown of insulted virtue effaces the smile of\ncomplacency, which his eloquent periods are wont to raise, when I\nread his voluptuous reveries.  Is this the man, who, in his ardour\nfor virtue, would banish all the soft arts of peace, and almost\ncarry us back to Spartan discipline?  Is this the man who delights\nto paint the useful struggles of passion, the triumphs of good\ndispositions, and the heroic flights which carry the glowing soul\nout of itself?  How are these mighty sentiments lowered when he\ndescribes the prettyfoot and enticing airs of his little favourite!\nBut, for the present, I waive the subject, and, instead of severely\nreprehending the transient effusions of overweening sensibility, I\nshall only observe, that whoever has cast a benevolent eye on\nsociety, must often have been gratified by the sight of humble\nmutual love, not dignified by sentiment, nor strengthened by a\nunion in intellectual pursuits.  The domestic trifles of the day\nhave afforded matter for cheerful converse, and innocent caresses\nhave softened toils which did not require great exercise of mind,\nor stretch of thought:  yet, has not the sight of this moderate\nfelicity excited more tenderness than respect?  An emotion similar\nto what we feel when children are playing, or animals sporting,\nwhilst the contemplation of the noble struggles of suffering merit\nhas raised admiration, and carried our thoughts to that world where\nsensation will give place to reason.\n\nWomen are, therefore, to be considered either as moral beings, or\nso weak that they must be entirely subjected to the superior\nfaculties of men.\n\nLet us examine this question.  Rousseau declares, that a woman\nshould never, for a moment feel herself independent, that she\nshould be governed by fear to exercise her NATURAL cunning, and\nmade a coquetish slave in order to render her a more alluring\nobject of desire, a SWEETER companion to man, whenever he chooses\nto relax himself.  He carries the arguments, which he pretends to\ndraw from the indications of nature, still further, and insinuates\nthat truth and fortitude the corner stones of all human virtue,\nshall be cultivated with certain restrictions, because with respect\nto the female character, obedience is the grand lesson which ought\nto be impressed with unrelenting rigour.\n\nWhat nonsense!  When will a great man arise with sufficient\nstrength of mind to puff away the fumes which pride and sensuality\nhave thus spread over the subject!  If women are by nature inferior\nto men, their virtues must be the same in quality, if not in\ndegree, or virtue is a relative idea; consequently, their conduct\nshould be founded on the same principles, and have the same aim.\n\nConnected with man as daughters, wives, and mothers, their moral\ncharacter may be estimated by their manner of fulfilling those\nsimple duties; but the end, the grand end of their exertions should\nbe to unfold their own faculties, and acquire the dignity of\nconscious virtue.  They may try to render their road pleasant; but\nought never to forget, in common with man, that life yields not the\nfelicity which can satisfy an immortal soul.  I do not mean to\ninsinuate, that either sex should be so lost, in abstract\nreflections or distant views, as to forget the affections and\nduties that lie before them, and are, in truth, the means appointed\nto produce the fruit of life; on the contrary, I would warmly\nrecommend them, even while I assert, that they afford most\nsatisfaction when they are considered in their true subordinate\nlight.\n\nProbably the prevailing opinion, that woman was created for man,\nmay have taken its rise from Moses's poetical story; yet, as very\nfew it is presumed, who have bestowed any serious thought on the\nsubject, ever supposed that Eve was, literally speaking, one of\nAdam's ribs, the deduction must be allowed to fall to the ground;\nor, only be so far admitted as it proves that man, from the\nremotest antiquity, found it convenient to exert his strength to\nsubjugate his companion, and his invention to show that she ought\nto have her neck bent under the yoke; because she as well as the\nbrute creation, was created to do his pleasure.\n\nLet it not be concluded, that I wish to invert the order of things;\nI have already granted, that, from the constitution of their\nbodies, men seem to be designed by Providence to attain a greater\ndegree of virtue.  I speak collectively of the whole sex; but I see\nnot the shadow of a reason to conclude that their virtues should\ndiffer in respect to their nature.  In fact, how can they, if\nvirtue has only one eternal standard?  I must, therefore, if I\nreason consequentially, as strenuously maintain, that they have the\nsame simple direction, as that there is a God.\n\nIt follows then, that cunning should not be opposed to wisdom,\nlittle cares to great exertions, nor insipid softness, varnished\nover with the name of gentleness, to that fortitude which grand\nviews alone can inspire.\n\nI shall be told, that woman would then lose many of her peculiar\ngraces, and the opinion of a well known poet might be quoted to\nrefute my unqualified assertions.  For Pope has said, in the name\nof the whole male sex,\n\n\"Yet ne'er so sure our passions to create,\nAs when she touch'd the brink of all we hate.\"\n\nIn what light this sally places men and women, I shall leave to the\njudicious to determine; meanwhile I shall content myself with\nobserving, that I cannot discover why, unless they are mortal,\nfemales should always be degraded by being made subservient to love\nor lust.\n\nTo speak disrespectfully of love is, I know, high treason against\nsentiment and fine feelings; but I wish to speak the simple\nlanguage of truth, and rather to address the head than the heart.\nTo endeavour to reason love out of the world, would be to out\nQuixote Cervantes, and equally offend against common sense; but an\nendeavour to restrain this tumultuous passion, and to prove that it\nshould not be allowed to dethrone superior powers, or to usurp the\nsceptre which the understanding should ever coolly wield, appears\nless wild.\n\nYouth is the season for love in both sexes; but in those days of\nthoughtless enjoyment, provision should be made for the more\nimportant years of life, when reflection takes place of sensation.\nBut Rousseau, and most of the male writers who have followed his\nsteps, have warmly inculcated that the whole tendency of female\neducation ought to be directed to one point to render them\npleasing.\n\nLet me reason with the supporters of this opinion, who have any\nknowledge of human nature, do they imagine that marriage can\neradicate the habitude of life?  The woman who has only been taught\nto please, will soon find that her charms are oblique sun-beams,\nand that they cannot have much effect on her husband's heart when\nthey are seen every day, when the summer is past and gone.  Will\nshe then have sufficient native energy to look into herself for\ncomfort, and cultivate her dormant faculties? or, is it not more\nrational to expect, that she will try to please other men; and, in\nthe emotions raised by the expectation of new conquests, endeavour\nto forget the mortification her love or pride has received?  When\nthe husband ceases to be a lover--and the time will inevitably\ncome, her desire of pleasing will then grow languid, or become a\nspring of bitterness; and love, perhaps, the most evanescent of all\npassions, gives place to jealousy or vanity.\n\nI now speak of women who are restrained by principle or prejudice;\nsuch women though they would shrink from an intrigue with real\nabhorrence, yet, nevertheless, wish to be convinced by the homage\nof gallantry, that they are cruelly neglected by their husbands;\nor, days and weeks are spent in dreaming of the happiness enjoyed\nby congenial souls, till the health is undermined and the spirits\nbroken by discontent.  How then can the great art of pleasing be\nsuch a necessary study? it is only useful to a mistress; the chaste\nwife, and serious mother, should only consider her power to please\nas the polish of her virtues, and the affection of her husband as\none of the comforts that render her task less difficult, and her\nlife happier.  But, whether she be loved or neglected, her first\nwish should be to make herself respectable, and not rely for all\nher happiness on a being subject to like infirmities with herself.\n\nThe amiable Dr. Gregory fell into a similar error.  I respect his\nheart; but entirely disapprove of his celebrated Legacy to his\nDaughters.\n\nHe advises them to cultivate a fondness for dress, because a\nfondness for dress, he asserts, is natural to them.  I am unable to\ncomprehend what either he or Rousseau mean, when they frequently\nuse this indefinite term.  If they told us, that in a pre-existent\nstate the soul was fond of dress, and brought this inclination with\nit into a new body, I should listen to them with a half smile, as I\noften do when I hear a rant about innate elegance.  But if he only\nmeant to say that the exercise of the faculties will produce this\nfondness, I deny it.  It is not natural; but arises, like false\nambition in men, from a love of power.\n\nDr. Gregory goes much further; he actually recommends\ndissimulation, and advises an innocent girl to give the lie to her\nfeelings, and not dance with spirit, when gaiety of heart would\nmake her feet eloquent, without making her gestures immodest.  In\nthe name of truth and common sense, why should not one woman\nacknowledge that she can take more exercise than another? or, in\nother words, that she has a sound constitution; and why to damp\ninnocent vivacity, is she darkly to be told, that men will draw\nconclusions which she little thinks of?  Let the libertine draw\nwhat inference he pleases; but, I hope, that no sensible mother\nwill restrain the natural frankness of youth, by instilling such\nindecent cautions.  Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth\nspeaketh; and a wiser than Solomon hath said, that the heart should\nbe made clean, and not trivial ceremonies observed, which it is not\nvery difficult to fulfill with scrupulous exactness when vice\nreigns in the heart.\n\nWomen ought to endeavour to purify their hearts; but can they do so\nwhen their uncultivated understandings make them entirely dependent\non their senses for employment and amusement, when no noble pursuit\nsets them above the little vanities of the day, or enables them to\ncurb the wild emotions that agitate a reed over which every passing\nbreeze has power?  To gain the affections of a virtuous man, is\naffectation necessary?\n\nNature has given woman a weaker frame than man; but, to ensure her\nhusband's affections, must a wife, who, by the exercise of her mind\nand body, whilst she was discharging the duties of a daughter,\nwife, and mother, has allowed her constitution to retain its\nnatural strength, and her nerves a healthy tone, is she, I say, to\ncondescend, to use art, and feign a sickly delicacy, in order to\nsecure her husband's affection? Weakness may excite tenderness, and\ngratify the arrogant pride of man; but the lordly caresses of a\nprotector will not gratify a noble mind that pants for and deserves\nto be respected.  Fondness is a poor substitute for friendship!\n\nIn a seraglio, I grant, that all these arts are necessary; the\nepicure must have his palate tickled, or he will sink into apathy;\nbut have women so little ambition as to be satisfied with such a\ncondition?  Can they supinely dream life away in the lap of\npleasure, or in the languor of weariness, rather than assert their\nclaim to pursue reasonable pleasures, and render themselves\nconspicuous, by practising the virtues which dignify mankind?\nSurely she has not an immortal soul who can loiter life away,\nmerely employed to adorn her person, that she may amuse the languid\nhours, and soften the cares of a fellow-creature who is willing to\nbe enlivened by her smiles and tricks, when the serious business of\nlife is over.\n\nBesides, the woman who strengthens her body and exercises her mind\nwill, by managing her family and practising various virtues, become\nthe friend, and not the humble dependent of her husband; and if she\ndeserves his regard by possessing such substantial qualities, she\nwill not find it necessary to conceal her affection, nor to pretend\nto an unnatural coldness of constitution to excite her husband's\npassions.  In fact, if we revert to history, we shall find that the\nwomen who have distinguished themselves have neither been the most\nbeautiful nor the most gentle of their sex.\n\nNature, or to speak with strict propriety God, has made all things\nright; but man has sought him out many inventions to mar the work.\nI now allude to that part of Dr. Gregory's treatise, where he\nadvises a wife never to let her husband know the extent of her\nsensibility or affection.  Voluptuous precaution; and as\nineffectual as absurd.  Love, from its very nature, must be\ntransitory.  To seek for a secret that would render it constant,\nwould be as wild a search as for the philosopher's stone, or the\ngrand panacea; and the discovery would be equally useless, or\nrather pernicious to mankind.  The most holy band of society is\nfriendship.  It has been well said, by a shrewd satirist, \"that\nrare as true love is, true friendship is still rarer.\"\n\nThis is an obvious truth, and the cause not lying deep, will not\nelude a slight glance of inquiry.\n\nLove, the common passion, in which chance and sensation take place\nof choice and reason, is in some degree, felt by the mass of\nmankind; for it is not necessary to speak, at present, of the\nemotions that rise above or sink below love.  This passion,\nnaturally increased by suspense and difficulties, draws the mind\nout of its accustomed state, and exalts the affections; but the\nsecurity of marriage, allowing the fever of love to subside, a\nhealthy temperature is thought insipid, only by those who have not\nsufficient intellect to substitute the calm tenderness of\nfriendship, the confidence of respect, instead of blind admiration,\nand the sensual emotions of fondness.\n\nThis is, must be, the course of nature--friendship or indifference\ninevitably succeeds love.  And this constitution seems perfectly to\nharmonize with the system of government which prevails in the moral\nworld.  Passions are spurs to action, and open the mind; but they\nsink into mere appetites, become a personal momentary\ngratification, when the object is gained, and the satisfied mind\nrests in enjoyment.  The man who had some virtue whilst he was\nstruggling for a crown, often becomes a voluptuous tyrant when it\ngraces his brow; and, when the lover is not lost in the husband,\nthe dotard a prey to childish caprices, and fond jealousies,\nneglects the serious duties of life, and the caresses which should\nexcite confidence in his children are lavished on the overgrown\nchild, his wife.\n\nIn order to fulfil the duties of life, and to be able to pursue\nwith vigour the various employments which form the moral character,\na master and mistress of a family ought not to continue to love\neach other with passion.  I mean to say, that they ought not to\nindulge those emotions which disturb the order of society, and\nengross the thoughts that should be otherwise employed.  The mind\nthat has never been engrossed by one object wants vigour--if it can\nlong be so, it is weak.\n\nA mistaken education, a narrow, uncultivated mind, and many sexual\nprejudices, tend to make women more constant than men; but, for the\npresent, I shall not touch on this branch of the subject.  I will\ngo still further, and advance, without dreaming of a paradox, that\nan unhappy marriage is often very advantageous to a family, and\nthat the neglected wife is, in general, the best mother.  And this\nwould almost always be the consequence, if the female mind was more\nenlarged; for, it seems to be the common dispensation of\nProvidence, that what we gain in present enjoyment should be\ndeducted from the treasure of life, experience; and that when we\nare gathering the flowers of the day and revelling in pleasure, the\nsolid fruit of toil and wisdom should not be caught at the same\ntime.  The way lies before us, we must turn to the right or left;\nand he who will pass life away in bounding from one pleasure to\nanother, must not complain if he neither acquires wisdom nor\nrespectability of character.\n\nSupposing for a moment, that the soul is not immortal, and that man\nwas only created for the present scene; I think we should have\nreason to complain that love, infantine fondness, ever grew insipid\nand palled upon the sense.  Let us eat, drink, and love, for\nto-morrow we die, would be in fact the language of reason, the\nmorality of life; and who but a fool would part with a reality for\na fleeting shadow?  But, if awed by observing the improvable powers\nof the mind, we disdain to confine our wishes or thoughts to such a\ncomparatively mean field of action; that only appears grand and\nimportant as it is connected with a boundless prospect and sublime\nhopes; what necessity is there for falsehood in conduct, and why\nmust the sacred majesty of truth be violated to detain a deceitful\ngood that saps the very foundation of virtue?  Why must the female\nmind be tainted by coquetish arts to gratify the sensualist, and\nprevent love from subsiding into friendship or compassionate\ntenderness, when there are not qualities on which friendship can be\nbuilt?  Let the honest heart show itself, and REASON teach passion\nto submit to necessity; or, let the dignified pursuit of virtue and\nknowledge raise the mind above those emotions which rather imbitter\nthan sweeten the cup of life, when they are not restrained within\ndue bounds.\n\nI do not mean to allude to the romantic passion, which is the\nconcomitant of genius.  Who can clip its wings?  But that grand\npassion not proportioned to the puny enjoyments of life, is only\ntrue to the sentiment, and feeds on itself.  The passions which\nhave been celebrated for their durability have always been\nunfortunate.  They have acquired strength by absence and\nconstitutional melancholy.  The fancy has hovered round a form of\nbeauty dimly seen--but familiarity might have turned admiration\ninto disgust; or, at least, into indifference, and allowed the\nimagination leisure to start fresh game.  With perfect propriety,\naccording to this view of things, does Rousseau make the mistress\nof his soul, Eloisa, love St. Preux, when life was fading before\nher; but this is no proof of the immortality of the passion.\n\nOf the same complexion is Dr. Gregory's advice respecting delicacy\nof sentiment, which he advises a woman not to acquire, if she has\ndetermined to marry.  This determination, however, perfectly\nconsistent with his former advice, he calls INDELICATE, and\nearnestly persuades his daughters to conceal it, though it may\ngovern their conduct:  as if it were indelicate to have the common\nappetites of human nature.\n\nNoble morality! and consistent with the cautious prudence of a\nlittle soul that cannot extend its views beyond the present minute\ndivision of existence.  If all the faculties of woman's mind are\nonly to be cultivated as they respect her dependence on man; if,\nwhen she obtains a husband she has arrived at her goal, and meanly\nproud, is satisfied with such a paltry crown, let her grovel\ncontentedly, scarcely raised by her employments above the animal\nkingdom; but, if she is struggling for the prize of her high\ncalling, let her cultivate her understanding without stopping to\nconsider what character the husband may have whom she is destined\nto marry.  Let her only determine, without being too anxious about\npresent happiness, to acquire the qualities that ennoble a rational\nbeing, and a rough, inelegant husband may shock her taste without\ndestroying her peace of mind.  She will not model her soul to suit\nthe frailties of her companion, but to bear with them:  his\ncharacter may be a trial, but not an impediment to virtue.\n\nIf Dr. Gregory confined his remark to romantic expectations of\nconstant love and congenial feelings, he should have recollected,\nthat experience will banish what advice can never make us cease to\nwish for, when the imagination is kept alive at the expence of\nreason.\n\nI own it frequently happens, that women who have fostered a\nromantic unnatural delicacy of feeling, waste their lives in\nIMAGINING how happy they should have been with a husband who could\nlove them with a fervid increasing affection every day, and all\nday.  But they might as well pine married as single, and would not\nbe a jot more unhappy with a bad husband than longing for a good\none.  That a proper education; or, to speak with more precision, a\nwell stored mind, would enable a woman to support a single life\nwith dignity, I grant; but that she should avoid cultivating her\ntaste, lest her husband should occasionally shock it, is quitting a\nsubstance for a shadow.  To say the truth, I do not know of what\nuse is an improved taste, if the individual be not rendered more\nindependent of the casualties of life; if new sources of enjoyment,\nonly dependent on the solitary operations of the mind, are not\nopened.  People of taste, married or single, without distinction,\nwill ever be disgusted by various things that touch not less\nobserving minds.  On this conclusion the argument must not be\nallowed to hinge; but in the whole sum of enjoyment is taste to be\ndenominated a blessing?\n\nThe question is, whether it procures most pain or pleasure?  The\nanswer will decide the propriety of Dr. Gregory's advice, and show\nhow absurd and tyrannic it is thus to lay down a system of slavery;\nor to attempt to educate moral beings by any other rules than those\ndeduced from pure reason, which apply to the whole species.\n\nGentleness of manners, forbearance, and long suffering, are such\namiable godlike qualities, that in sublime poetic strains the Deity\nhas been invested with them; and, perhaps, no representation of his\ngoodness so strongly fastens on the human affections as those that\nrepresent him abundant in mercy and willing to pardon.  Gentleness,\nconsidered in this point of view, bears on its front all the\ncharacteristics of grandeur, combined with the winning graces of\ncondescension; but what a different aspect it assumes when it is\nthe submissive demeanour of dependence, the support of weakness\nthat loves, because it wants protection; and is forbearing, because\nit must silently endure injuries; smiling under the lash at which\nit dare not snarl.  Abject as this picture appears, it is the\nportrait of an accomplished woman, according to the received\nopinion of female excellence, separated by specious reasoners from\nhuman excellence.  Or, they (Vide Rousseau, and Swedenborg) kindly\nrestore the rib, and make one moral being of a man and woman; not\nforgetting to give her all the \"submissive charms.\"\n\nHow women are to exist in that state where there is to be neither\nmarrying nor giving in marriage, we are not told.  For though\nmoralists have agreed, that the tenor of life seems to prove that\nMAN is prepared by various circumstances for a future state, they\nconstantly concur in advising WOMAN only to provide for the\npresent.  Gentleness, docility, and a spaniel-like affection are,\non this ground, consistently recommended as the cardinal virtues of\nthe sex; and, disregarding the arbitrary economy of nature, one\nwriter has declared that it is masculine for a woman to be\nmelancholy.  She was created to be the toy of man, his rattle, and\nit must jingle in his ears, whenever, dismissing reason, he chooses\nto be amused.\n\nTo recommend gentleness, indeed, on a broad basis is strictly\nphilosophical.  A frail being should labour to be gentle.  But when\nforbearance confounds right and wrong, it ceases to be a virtue;\nand, however convenient it may be found in a companion, that\ncompanion will ever be considered as an inferior, and only inspire\na vapid tenderness, which easily degenerates into contempt.  Still,\nif advice could really make a being gentle, whose natural\ndisposition admitted not of such a fine polish, something toward\nthe advancement of order would be attained; but if, as might\nquickly be demonstrated, only affectation be produced by this\nindiscriminate counsel, which throws a stumbling block in the way\nof gradual improvement, and true melioration of temper, the sex is\nnot much benefited by sacrificing solid virtues to the attainment\nof superficial graces, though for a few years they may procure the\nindividual's regal sway.\n\nAs a philosopher, I read with indignation the plausible epithets\nwhich men use to soften their insults; and, as a moralist, I ask\nwhat is meant by such heterogeneous associations, as fair defects,\namiable weaknesses, etc.? If there is but one criterion of morals,\nbut one archetype for man, women appear to be suspended by destiny,\naccording to the vulgar tale of Mahomet's coffin; they have neither\nthe unerring instinct of brutes, nor are allowed to fix the eye of\nreason on a perfect model.  They were made to be loved, and must\nnot aim at respect, lest they should be hunted out of society as\nmasculine.\n\nBut to view the subject in another point of view.  Do passive\nindolent women make the best wives?  Confining our discussion to\nthe present moment of existence, let us see how such weak creatures\nperform their part?  Do the women who, by the attainment of a few\nsuperficial accomplishments, have strengthened the prevailing\nprejudice, merely contribute to the happiness of their husbands?\nDo they display their charms merely to amuse them?  And have women,\nwho have early imbibed notions of passive obedience, sufficient\ncharacter to manage a family or educate children?  So far from it,\nthat, after surveying the history of woman, I cannot help agreeing\nwith the severest satirist, considering the sex as the weakest as\nwell as the most oppressed half of the species.  What does history\ndisclose but marks of inferiority, and how few women have\nemancipated themselves from the galling yoke of sovereign man?  So\nfew, that the exceptions remind me of an ingenious conjecture\nrespecting Newton:  that he was probably a being of a superior\norder, accidentally caged in a human body.  In the same style I\nhave been led to imagine that the few extraordinary women who have\nrushed in eccentrical directions out of the orbit prescribed to\ntheir sex, were MALE spirits, confined by mistake in a female\nframe.  But if it be not philosophical to think of sex when the\nsoul is mentioned, the inferiority must depend on the organs; or\nthe heavenly fire, which is to ferment the clay, is not given in\nequal portions.\n\nBut avoiding, as I have hitherto done, any direct comparison of the\ntwo sexes collectively, or frankly acknowledging the inferiority of\nwoman, according to the present appearance of things, I shall only\ninsist, that men have increased that inferiority till women are\nalmost sunk below the standard of rational creatures.  Let their\nfaculties have room to unfold, and their virtues to gain strength,\nand then determine where the whole sex must stand in the\nintellectual scale.  Yet, let it be remembered, that for a small\nnumber of distinguished women I do not ask a place.\n\nIt is difficult for us purblind mortals to say to what height human\ndiscoveries and improvements may arrive, when the gloom of\ndespotism subsides, which makes us stumble at every step; but, when\nmorality shall be settled on a more solid basis, then, without\nbeing gifted with a prophetic spirit, I will venture to predict,\nthat woman will be either the friend or slave of man.  We shall\nnot, as at present, doubt whether she is a moral agent, or the link\nwhich unites man with brutes.  But, should it then appear, that\nlike the brutes they were principally created for the use of man,\nhe will let them patiently bite the bridle, and not mock them with\nempty praise; or, should their rationality be proved, he will not\nimpede their improvement merely to gratify his sensual appetites.\nHe will not with all the graces of rhetoric, advise them to submit\nimplicitly their understandings to the guidance of man.  He will\nnot, when he treats of the education of women, assert, that they\nought never to have the free use of reason, nor would he recommend\ncunning and dissimulation to beings who are acquiring, in like\nmanner as himself, the virtues of humanity.\n\nSurely there can be but one rule of right, if morality has an\neternal foundation, and whoever sacrifices virtue, strictly so\ncalled, to present convenience, or whose DUTY it is to act in such\na manner, lives only for the passing day, and cannot be an\naccountable creature.\n\nThe poet then should have dropped his sneer when he says,\n\n\"If weak women go astray,\nThe stars are more in fault than they.\"\n\nFor that they are bound by the adamantine chain of destiny is most\ncertain, if it be proved that they are never to exercise their own\nreason, never to be independent, never to rise above opinion, or to\nfeel the dignity of a rational will that only bows to God, and\noften forgets that the universe contains any being but itself, and\nthe model of perfection to which its ardent gaze is turned, to\nadore attributes that, softened into virtues, may be imitated in\nkind, though the degree overwhelms the enraptured mind.\n\nIf, I say, for I would not impress by declamation when reason\noffers her sober light, if they are really capable of acting like\nrational creatures, let them not be treated like slaves; or, like\nthe brutes who are dependent on the reason of man, when they\nassociate with him; but cultivate their minds, give them the\nsalutary, sublime curb of principle, and let them attain conscious\ndignity by feeling themselves only dependent on God.  Teach them,\nin common with man, to submit to necessity, instead of giving, to\nrender them more pleasing, a sex to morals.\n\nFurther, should experience prove that they cannot attain the same\ndegree of strength of mind, perseverance and fortitude, let their\nvirtues be the same in kind, though they may vainly struggle for\nthe same degree; and the superiority of man will be equally clear,\nif not clearer; and truth, as it is a simple principle, which\nadmits of no modification, would be common to both.  Nay, the order\nof society, as it is at present regulated, would not be inverted,\nfor woman would then only have the rank that reason assigned her,\nand arts could not be practised to bring the balance even, much\nless to turn it.\n\nThese may be termed Utopian dreams.  Thanks to that Being who\nimpressed them on my soul, and gave me sufficient strength of mind\nto dare to exert my own reason, till becoming dependent only on him\nfor the support of my virtue, I view with indignation, the mistaken\nnotions that enslave my sex.\n\nI love man as my fellow; but his sceptre real or usurped, extends\nnot to me, unless the reason of an individual demands my homage;\nand even then the submission is to reason, and not to man.  In\nfact, the conduct of an accountable being must be regulated by the\noperations of its own reason; or on what foundation rests the\nthrone of God?\n\nIt appears to me necessary to dwell on these obvious truths,\nbecause females have been insulted, as it were; and while they have\nbeen stripped of the virtues that should clothe humanity, they have\nbeen decked with artificial graces, that enable them to exercise a\nshort lived tyranny.  Love, in their bosoms, taking place of every\nnobler passion, their sole ambition is to be fair, to raise emotion\ninstead of inspiring respect; and this ignoble desire, like the\nservility in absolute monarchies, destroys all strength of\ncharacter.  Liberty is the mother of virtue, and if women are, by\ntheir very constitution, slaves, and not allowed to breathe the\nsharp invigorating air of freedom, they must ever languish like\nexotics, and be reckoned beautiful flaws in nature; let it also be\nremembered, that they are the only flaw.\n\nAs to the argument respecting the subjection in which the sex has\never been held, it retorts on man.  The many have always been\nenthralled by the few; and, monsters who have scarcely shown any\ndiscernment of human excellence, have tyrannized over thousands of\ntheir fellow creatures.  Why have men of superior endowments\nsubmitted to such degradation?  For, is it not universally\nacknowledged that kings, viewed collectively, have ever been\ninferior, in abilities and virtue, to the same number of men taken\nfrom the common mass of mankind--yet, have they not, and are they\nnot still treated with a degree of reverence, that is an insult to\nreason?  China is not the only country where a living man has been\nmade a God.  MEN have submitted to superior strength, to enjoy with\nimpunity the pleasure of the moment--WOMEN have only done the same,\nand therefore till it is proved that the courtier, who servilely\nresigns the birthright of a man, is not a moral agent, it cannot be\ndemonstrated that woman is essentially inferior to man, because she\nhas always been subjugated.\n\nBrutal force has hitherto governed the world, and that the science\nof politics is in its infancy, is evident from philosophers\nscrupling to give the knowledge most useful to man that determinate\ndistinction.\n\nI shall not pursue this argument any further than to establish an\nobvious inference, that as sound politics diffuse liberty, mankind,\nincluding woman, will become more wise and virtuous.\n\n\nCHAPTER 3.\n\nTHE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.\n\nBodily strength from being the distinction of heroes is now sunk\ninto such unmerited contempt, that men as well as women, seem to\nthink it unnecessary:  the latter, as it takes from their feminine\ngraces, and from that lovely weakness, the source of their undue\npower; and the former, because it appears inimical with the\ncharacter of a gentleman.\n\nThat they have both by departing from one extreme run into another,\nmay easily be proved; but it first may be proper to observe, that a\nvulgar error has obtained a degree of credit, which has given force\nto a false conclusion, in which an effect has been mistaken for a\ncause.\n\nPeople of genius have, very frequently, impaired their\nconstitutions by study, or careless inattention to their health,\nand the violence of their passions bearing a proportion to the\nvigour of their intellects, the sword's destroying the scabbard has\nbecome almost proverbial, and superficial observers have inferred\nfrom thence, that men of genius have commonly weak, or to use a\nmore fashionable phrase, delicate constitutions.  Yet the contrary,\nI believe, will appear to be the fact; for, on diligent inquiry, I\nfind that strength of mind has, in most cases, been accompanied by\nsuperior strength of body, natural soundness of constitution, not\nthat robust tone of nerves and vigour of muscles, which arise from\nbodily labour, when the mind is quiescent, or only directs the\nhands.\n\nDr. Priestley has remarked, in the preface to his biographical\nchart, that the majority of great men have lived beyond forty-five.\nAnd, considering the thoughtless manner in which they lavished\ntheir strength, when investigating a favourite science, they have\nwasted the lamp of life, forgetful of the midnight hour; or, when,\nlost in poetic dreams, fancy has peopled the scene, and the soul\nhas been disturbed, till it shook the constitution, by the passions\nthat meditation had raised; whose objects, the baseless fabric of a\nvision, faded before the exhausted eye, they must have had iron\nframes.  Shakespeare never grasped the airy dagger with a nerveless\nhand, nor did Milton tremble when he led Satan far from the\nconfines of his dreary prison.  These were not the ravings of\nimbecility, the sickly effusions of distempered brains; but the\nexuberance of fancy, that \"in a fine phrenzy\" wandering, was not\ncontinually reminded of its material shackles.\n\nI am aware, that this argument would carry me further than it may\nbe supposed I wish to go; but I follow truth, and still adhering to\nmy first position, I will allow that bodily strength seems to give\nman a natural superiority over woman; and this is the only solid\nbasis on which the superiority of the sex can be built.  But I\nstill insist, that not only the virtue, but the KNOWLEDGE of the\ntwo sexes should be the same in nature, if not in degree, and that\nwomen, considered not only as moral, but rational creatures, ought\nto endeavour to acquire human virtues (or perfections) by the SAME\nmeans as men, instead of being educated like a fanciful kind of\nHALF being, one of Rousseau's wild chimeras.\n\nBut, if strength of body be, with some show of reason, the boast of\nmen, why are women so infatuated as to be proud of a defect?\nRousseau has furnished them with a plausible excuse, which could\nonly have occurred to a man, whose imagination had been allowed to\nrun wild, and refine on the impressions made by exquisite senses,\nthat they might, forsooth have a pretext for yielding to a natural\nappetite without violating a romantic species of modesty, which\ngratifies the pride and libertinism of man.\n\nWomen deluded by these sentiments, sometimes boast of their\nweakness, cunningly obtaining power by playing on the WEAKNESS of\nmen; and they may well glory in their illicit sway, for, like\nTurkish bashaws, they have more real power than their masters:  but\nvirtue is sacrificed to temporary gratifications, and the\nrespectability of life to the triumph of an hour.\n\nWomen, as well as despots, have now, perhaps, more power than they\nwould have, if the world, divided and subdivided into kingdoms and\nfamilies, was governed by laws deduced from the exercise of reason;\nbut in obtaining it, to carry on the comparison, their character is\ndegraded, and licentiousness spread through the whole aggregate of\nsociety.  The many become pedestal to the few.  I, therefore will\nventure to assert, that till women are more rationally educated,\nthe progress of human virtue and improvement in knowledge must\nreceive continual checks.  And if it be granted, that woman was not\ncreated merely to gratify the appetite of man, nor to be the upper\nservant, who provides his meals and takes care of his linen, it\nmust follow, that the first care of those mothers or fathers, who\nreally attend to the education of females, should be, if not to\nstrengthen the body, at least, not to destroy the constitution by\nmistaken notions of beauty and female excellence; nor should girls\never be allowed to imbibe the pernicious notion that a defect can,\nby any chemical process of reasoning become an excellence.  In this\nrespect, I am happy to find, that the author of one of the most\ninstructive books, that our country has produced for children,\ncoincides with me in opinion; I shall quote his pertinent remarks\nto give the force of his respectable authority to reason.*\n\n(*Footnote.  A respectable old man gives the following sensible\naccount of the method he pursued when educating his daughter.  \"I\nendeavoured to give both to her mind and body a degree of vigour,\nwhich is seldom found in the female sex.  As soon as she was\nsufficiently advanced in strength to be capable of the lighter\nlabours of husbandry and gardening, I employed her as my constant\ncompanion.  Selene, for that was her name, soon acquired a\ndexterity in all these rustic employments which I considered with\nequal pleasure and admiration.  If women are in general feeble both\nin body and mind, it arises less from nature than from education.\nWe encourage a vicious indolence and inactivity, which we falsely\ncall delicacy; instead of hardening their minds by the severer\nprinciples of reason and philosophy, we breed them to useless arts,\nwhich terminate in vanity and sensuality.  In most of the countries\nwhich I had visited, they are taught nothing of an higher nature\nthan a few modulations of the voice, or useless postures of the\nbody; their time is consumed in sloth or trifles, and trifles\nbecome the only pursuits capable of interesting them.  We seem to\nforget, that it is upon the qualities of the female sex, that our\nown domestic comforts and the education of our children must\ndepend.  And what are the comforts or the education which a race of\nbeings corrupted from their infancy, and unacquainted with all the\nduties of life, are fitted to bestow?  To touch a musical\ninstrument with useless skill, to exhibit their natural or affected\ngraces, to the eyes of indolent and debauched young men, who\ndissipate their husbands' patrimony in riotous and unnecessary\nexpenses:  these are the only arts cultivated by women in most of\nthe polished nations I had seen.  And the consequences are\nuniformly such as may be expected to proceed from such polluted\nsources, private misery, and public servitude.\n\n\"But, Selene's education was regulated by different views, and\nconducted upon severer principles; if that can be called severity\nwhich opens the mind to a sense of moral and religious duties, and\nmost effectually arms it against the inevitable evils of\nlife.\"--Mr. Day's \"Sandford and Merton,\" Volume 3.)\n\nBut should it be proved that woman is naturally weaker than man,\nfrom whence does it follow that it is natural for her to labour to\nbecome still weaker than nature intended her to be?  Arguments of\nthis cast are an insult to common sense, and savour of passion.\nThe DIVINE RIGHT of husbands, like the divine right of kings, may,\nit is to be hoped, in this enlightened age, be contested without\ndanger, and though conviction may not silence many boisterous\ndisputants, yet, when any prevailing prejudice is attacked, the\nwise will consider, and leave the narrow-minded to rail with\nthoughtless vehemence at innovation.\n\nThe mother, who wishes to give true dignity of character to her\ndaughter, must, regardless of the sneers of ignorance, proceed on a\nplan diametrically opposite to that which Rousseau has recommended\nwith all the deluding charms of eloquence and philosophical\nsophistry:  for his eloquence renders absurdities plausible, and\nhis dogmatic conclusions puzzle, without convincing those who have\nnot ability to refute them.\n\nThroughout the whole animal kingdom every young creature requires\nalmost continual exercise, and the infancy of children, conformable\nto this intimation, should be passed in harmless gambols, that\nexercise the feet and hands, without requiring very minute\ndirection from the head, or the constant attention of a nurse.  In\nfact, the care necessary for self-preservation is the first natural\nexercise of the understanding, as little inventions to amuse the\npresent moment unfold the imagination.  But these wise designs of\nnature are counteracted by mistaken fondness or blind zeal.  The\nchild is not left a moment to its own direction, particularly a\ngirl, and thus rendered dependent--dependence is called natural.\n\nTo preserve personal beauty, woman's glory! the limbs and faculties\nare cramped with worse than Chinese bands, and the sedentary life\nwhich they are condemned to live, whilst boys frolic in the open\nair, weakens the muscles and relaxes the nerves.  As for Rousseau's\nremarks, which have since been echoed by several writers, that they\nhave naturally, that is from their birth, independent of education,\na fondness for dolls, dressing, and talking, they are so puerile as\nnot to merit a serious refutation.  That a girl, condemned to sit\nfor hours together listening to the idle chat of weak nurses or to\nattend at her mother's toilet, will endeavour to join the\nconversation, is, indeed very natural; and that she will imitate\nher mother or aunts, and amuse herself by adorning her lifeless\ndoll, as they do in dressing her, poor innocent babe! is\nundoubtedly a most natural consequence.  For men of the greatest\nabilities have seldom had sufficient strength to rise above the\nsurrounding atmosphere; and, if the page of genius has always been\nblurred by the prejudices of the age, some allowance should be made\nfor a sex, who, like kings, always see things through a false\nmedium.\n\nIn this manner may the fondness for dress, conspicuous in women, be\neasily accounted for, without supposing it the result of a desire\nto please the sex on which they are dependent.  The absurdity, in\nshort, of supposing that a girl is naturally a coquette, and that a\ndesire connected with the impulse of nature to propagate the\nspecies, should appear even before an improper education has, by\nheating the imagination, called it forth prematurely, is so\nunphilosophical, that such a sagacious observer as Rousseau would\nnot have adopted it, if he had not been accustomed to make reason\ngive way to his desire of singularity, and truth to a favourite\nparadox.\n\nYet thus to give a sex to mind was not very consistent with the\nprinciples of a man who argued so warmly, and so well, for the\nimmortality of the soul.  But what a weak barrier is truth when it\nstands in the way of an hypothesis!  Rousseau respected--almost\nadored virtue--and yet allowed himself to love with sensual\nfondness.  His imagination constantly prepared inflammable fuel for\nhis inflammable senses; but, in order to reconcile his respect for\nself-denial, fortitude and those heroic virtues, which a mind like\nhis could not coolly admire, he labours to invert the law of\nnature, and broaches a doctrine pregnant with mischief, and\nderogatory to the character of supreme wisdom.\n\nHis ridiculous stories, which tend to prove that girls are\nNATURALLY attentive to their persons, without laying any stress on\ndaily example, are below contempt.  And that a little miss should\nhave such a correct taste as to neglect the pleasing amusement of\nmaking O's, merely because she perceived that it was an ungraceful\nattitude, should be selected with the anecdotes of the learned\npig.*\n\n(*Footnote.  \"I once knew a young person who learned to write\nbefore she learned to read, and began to write with her needle\nbefore she could use a pen.  At first indeed, she took it into her\nhead to make no other letter than the O:  this letter she was\nconstantly making of all sizes, and always the wrong way.\nUnluckily one day, as she was intent on this employment, she\nhappened to see herself in the looking glass; when, taking a\ndislike to the constrained attitude in which she sat while writing,\nshe threw away her pen, like another Pallas, and determined against\nmaking the O any more.  Her brother was also equally averse to\nwriting:  it was the confinement, however, and not the constrained\nattitude, that most disgusted him.\"\nRousseau's \"Emilius.\")\n\nI have, probably, had an opportunity of observing more girls in\ntheir infancy than J. J. Rousseau.  I can recollect my own\nfeelings, and I have looked steadily around me; yet, so far from\ncoinciding with him in opinion respecting the first dawn of the\nfemale character, I will venture to affirm, that a girl, whose\nspirits have not been damped by inactivity, or innocence tainted by\nfalse shame, will always be a romp, and the doll will never excite\nattention unless confinement allows her no alternative.  Girls and\nboys, in short, would play harmless together, if the distinction of\nsex was not inculcated long before nature makes any difference.  I\nwill, go further, and affirm, as an indisputable fact, that most of\nthe women, in the circle of my observation, who have acted like\nrational creatures, or shown any vigour of intellect, have\naccidentally been allowed to run wild, as some of the elegant\nformers of the fair sex would insinuate.\n\nThe baneful consequences which flow from inattention to health\nduring infancy, and youth, extend further than is supposed,\ndependence of body naturally produces dependence of mind; and how\ncan she be a good wife or mother, the greater part of whose time is\nemployed to guard against or endure sickness; nor can it be\nexpected, that a woman will resolutely endeavour to strengthen her\nconstitution and abstain from enervating indulgences, if artificial\nnotions of beauty, and false descriptions of sensibility, have been\nearly entangled with her motives of action.  Most men are sometimes\nobliged to bear with bodily inconveniences, and to endure,\noccasionally, the inclemency of the elements; but genteel women\nare, literally speaking, slaves to their bodies, and glory in their\nsubjection.\n\nI once knew a weak woman of fashion, who was more than commonly\nproud of her delicacy and sensibility.  She thought a\ndistinguishing taste and puny appetite the height of all human\nperfection, and acted accordingly.  I have seen this weak\nsophisticated being neglect all the duties of life, yet recline\nwith self-complacency on a sofa, and boast of her want of appetite\nas a proof of delicacy that extended to, or, perhaps, arose from,\nher exquisite sensibility:  for it is difficult to render\nintelligible such ridiculous jargon.  Yet, at the moment, I have\nseen her insult a worthy old gentlewoman, whom unexpected\nmisfortunes had made dependent on her ostentatious bounty, and who,\nin better days, had claims on her gratitude.  Is it possible that a\nhuman creature should have become such a weak and depraved being,\nif, like the Sybarites, dissolved in luxury, every thing like\nvirtue had not been worn away, or never impressed by precept, a\npoor substitute it is true, for cultivation of mind, though it\nserves as a fence against vice?\n\nSuch a woman is not a more irrational monster than some of the\nRoman emperors, who were depraved by lawless power.  Yet, since\nkings have been more under the restraint of law, and the curb,\nhowever weak, of honour, the records of history are not filled with\nsuch unnatural instances of folly and cruelty, nor does the\ndespotism that kills virtue and genius in the bud, hover over\nEurope with that destructive blast which desolates Turkey, and\nrenders the men, as well as the soil unfruitful.\n\nWomen are every where in this deplorable state; for, in order to\npreserve their innocence, as ignorance is courteously termed, truth\nis hidden from them, and they are made to assume an artificial\ncharacter before their faculties have acquired any strength.\nTaught from their infancy, that beauty is woman's sceptre, the mind\nshapes itself to the body, and, roaming round its gilt cage, only\nseeks to adorn its prison.  Men have various employments and\npursuits which engage their attention, and give a character to the\nopening mind; but women, confined to one, and having their thoughts\nconstantly directed to the most insignificant part of themselves,\nseldom extend their views beyond the triumph of the hour.  But was\ntheir understanding once emancipated from the slavery to which the\npride and sensuality of man and their short sighted desire, like\nthat of dominion in tyrants, of present sway, has subjected them,\nwe should probably read of their weaknesses with surprise.  I must\nbe allowed to pursue the argument a little farther.\n\nPerhaps, if the existence of an evil being was allowed, who, in the\nallegorical language of scripture, went about seeking whom he\nshould devour, he could not more effectually degrade the human\ncharacter than by giving a man absolute power.\n\nThis argument branches into various ramifications.  Birth, riches,\nand every intrinsic advantage that exalt a man above his fellows,\nwithout any mental exertion, sink him in reality below them.  In\nproportion to his weakness, he is played upon by designing men,\ntill the bloated monster has lost all traces of humanity.  And that\ntribes of men, like flocks of sheep, should quietly follow such a\nleader, is a solecism that only a desire of present enjoyment and\nnarrowness of understanding can solve.  Educated in slavish\ndependence, and enervated by luxury and sloth, where shall we find\nmen who will stand forth to assert the rights of man; or claim the\nprivilege of moral beings, who should have but one road to\nexcellence? Slavery to monarchs and ministers, which the world will\nbe long in freeing itself from, and whose deadly grasp stops the\nprogress of the human mind, is not yet abolished.\n\nLet not men then in the pride of power, use the same arguments that\ntyrannic kings and venal ministers have used, and fallaciously\nassert, that woman ought to be subjected because she has always\nbeen so.  But, when man, governed by reasonable laws, enjoys his\nnatural freedom, let him despise woman, if she do not share it with\nhim; and, till that glorious period arrives, in descanting on the\nfolly of the sex, let him not overlook his own.\n\nWomen, it is true, obtaining power by unjust means, by practising\nor fostering vice, evidently lose the rank which reason would\nassign them, and they become either abject slaves or capricious\ntyrants.  They lose all simplicity, all dignity of mind, in\nacquiring power, and act as men are observed to act when they have\nbeen exalted by the same means.\n\nIt is time to effect a revolution in female manners, time to\nrestore to them their lost dignity, and make them, as a part of the\nhuman species, labour by reforming themselves to reform the world.\nIt is time to separate unchangeable morals from local manners.  If\nmen be demi-gods, why let us serve them!  And if the dignity of the\nfemale soul be as disputable as that of animals, if their reason\ndoes not afford sufficient light to direct their conduct whilst\nunerring instinct is denied, they are surely of all creatures the\nmost miserable and, bent beneath the iron hand of destiny, must\nsubmit to be a FAIR DEFECT in creation.  But to justify the ways of\nprovidence respecting them, by pointing out some irrefragable\nreason for thus making such a large portion of mankind accountable\nand not accountable, would puzzle the subtlest casuist.\n\nThe only solid foundation for morality appears to be the character\nof the Supreme Being; the harmony of which arises from a balance of\nattributes; and, to speak with reverence, one attribute seems to\nimply the NECESSITY of another.  He must be just, because he is\nwise, he must be good, because he is omnipotent.  For, to exalt one\nattribute at the expense of another equally noble and necessary,\nbears the stamp of the warped reason of man, the homage of passion.\nMan, accustomed to bow down to power in his savage state, can\nseldom divest himself of this barbarous prejudice even when\ncivilization determines how much superior mental is to bodily\nstrength; and his reason is clouded by these crude opinions, even\nwhen he thinks of the Deity.  His omnipotence is made to swallow\nup, or preside over his other attributes, and those mortals are\nsupposed to limit his power irreverently, who think that it must be\nregulated by his wisdom.\n\nI disclaim that species of humility which, after investigating\nnature, stops at the author.  The high and lofty One, who\ninhabiteth eternity, doubtless possesses many attributes of which\nwe can form no conception; but reason tells me that they cannot\nclash with those I adore, and I am compelled to listen to her\nvoice.\n\nIt seems natural for man to search for excellence, and either to\ntrace it in the object that he worships, or blindly to invest it\nwith perfection as a garment.  But what good effect can the latter\nmode of worship have on the moral conduct of a rational being?  He\nbends to power; he adores a dark cloud, which may open a bright\nprospect to him, or burst in angry, lawless fury on his devoted\nhead, he knows not why.  And, supposing that the Deity acts from\nthe vague impulse of an undirected will, man must also follow his\nown, or act according to rules, deduced from principles which he\ndisclaims as irreverent.  Into this dilemma have both enthusiasts\nand cooler thinkers fallen, when they laboured to free men from the\nwholesome restraints which a just conception of the character of\nGod imposes.\n\nIt is not impious thus to scan the attributes of the Almighty:  in\nfact, who can avoid it that exercises his faculties? for to love\nGod as the fountain of wisdom, goodness, and power, appears to be\nthe only worship useful to a being who wishes to acquire either\nvirtue or knowledge.  A blind unsettled affection may, like human\npassions, occupy the mind and warm the heart, whilst, to do\njustice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God, is forgotten.  I\nshall pursue this subject still further, when I consider religion\nin a light opposite to that recommended by Dr. Gregory, who treats\nit as a matter of sentiment or taste.\n\nTo return from this apparent digression.  It were to be wished,\nthat women would cherish an affection for their husbands, founded\non the same principle that devotion ought to rest upon.  No other\nfirm base is there under heaven, for let them beware of the\nfallacious light of sentiment; too often used as a softer phrase\nfor sensuality.  It follows then, I think, that from their infancy\nwomen should either be shut up like eastern princes, or educated in\nsuch a manner as to be able to think and act for themselves.\n\nWhy do men halt between two opinions, and expect impossibilities?\nWhy do they expect virtue from a slave, or from a being whom the\nconstitution of civil society has rendered weak, if not vicious?\n\nStill I know that it will require a considerable length of time to\neradicate the firmly rooted prejudices which sensualists have\nplanted; it will also require some time to convince women that they\nact contrary to their real interest on an enlarged scale, when they\ncherish or affect weakness under the name of delicacy, and to\nconvince the world that the poisoned source of female vices and\nfollies, if it be necessary, in compliance with custom, to use\nsynonymous terms in a lax sense, has been the sensual homage paid\nto beauty:  to beauty of features; for it has been shrewdly\nobserved by a German writer, that a pretty woman, as an object of\ndesire, is generally allowed to be so by men of all descriptions;\nwhilst a fine woman, who inspires more sublime emotions by\ndisplaying intellectual beauty, may be overlooked or observed with\nindifference, by those men who find their happiness in the\ngratification of their appetites.  I foresee an obvious retort;\nwhilst man remains such an imperfect being as he appears hitherto\nto have been, he will, more or less, be the slave of his appetites;\nand those women obtaining most power who gratify a predominant one,\nthe sex is degraded by a physical, if not by a moral necessity.\n\nThis objection has, I grant, some force; but while such a sublime\nprecept exists, as, \"be pure as your heavenly father is pure;\" it\nwould seem that the virtues of man are not limited by the Being who\nalone could limit them; and that he may press forward without\nconsidering whether he steps out of his sphere by indulging such a\nnoble ambition.  To the wild billows it has been said, \"thus far\nshalt thou go, and no further; and here shall thy proud waves be\nstayed.\"  Vainly then do they beat and foam, restrained by the\npower that confines the struggling planets within their orbits,\nmatter yields to the great governing Spirit.  But an immortal soul,\nnot restrained by mechanical laws, and struggling to free itself\nfrom the shackles of matter, contributes to, instead of disturbing,\nthe order of creation, when, co-operating with the Father of\nspirits, it tries to govern itself by the invariable rule that, in\na degree, before which our imagination faints, the universe is\nregulated.\n\nBesides, if women are educated for dependence, that is, to act\naccording to the will of another fallible being, and submit, right\nor wrong, to power, where are we to stop?  Are they to be\nconsidered as viceregents, allowed to reign over a small domain,\nand answerable for their conduct to a higher tribunal, liable to\nerror?\n\nIt will not be difficult to prove, that such delegates will act\nlike men subjected by fear, and make their children and servants\nendure their tyrannical oppression.  As they submit without reason,\nthey will, having no fixed rules to square their conduct by, be\nkind or cruel, just as the whim of the moment directs; and we ought\nnot to wonder if sometimes, galled by their heavy yoke, they take a\nmalignant pleasure in resting it on weaker shoulders.\n\nBut, supposing a woman, trained up to obedience, be married to a\nsensible man, who directs her judgment, without making her feel the\nservility of her subjection, to act with as much propriety by this\nreflected light as can be expected when reason is taken at second\nhand, yet she cannot ensure the life of her protector; he may die\nand leave her with a large family.\n\nA double duty devolves on her; to educate them in the character of\nboth father and mother; to form their principles and secure their\nproperty.  But, alas! she has never thought, much less acted for\nherself.  She has only learned to please men, to depend gracefully\non them; yet, encumbered with children, how is she to obtain\nanother protector; a husband to supply the place of reason?  A\nrational man, for we are not treading on romantic ground, though he\nmay think her a pleasing docile creature, will not choose to marry\na FAMILY for love, when the world contains many more pretty\ncreatures.  What is then to become of her?  She either falls an\neasy prey to some mean fortune hunter, who defrauds her children of\ntheir paternal inheritance, and renders her miserable; or becomes\nthe victim of discontent and blind indulgence.  Unable to educate\nher sons, or impress them with respect; for it is not a play on\nwords to assert, that people are never respected, though filling an\nimportant station, who are not respectable; she pines under the\nanguish of unavailing impotent regret.  The serpent's tooth enters\ninto her very soul, and the vices of licentious youth bring her\nwith sorrow, if not with poverty also, to the grave.\n\nThis is not an overcharged picture; on the contrary, it is a very\npossible case, and something similar must have fallen under every\nattentive eye.\n\nI have, however, taken it for granted, that she was well disposed,\nthough experience shows, that the blind may as easily be led into a\nditch as along the beaten road.  But supposing, no very improbable\nconjecture, that a being only taught to please must still find her\nhappiness in pleasing; what an example of folly, not to say vice,\nwill she be to her innocent daughters!  The mother will be lost in\nthe coquette, and, instead of making friends of her daughters, view\nthem with eyes askance, for they are rivals--rivals more cruel than\nany other, because they invite a comparison, and drive her from the\nthrone of beauty, who has never thought of a seat on the bench of\nreason.\n\nIt does not require a lively pencil, or the discriminating outline\nof a caricature, to sketch the domestic miseries and petty vices\nwhich such a mistress of a family diffuses.  Still she only acts as\na woman ought to act, brought up according to Rousseau's system.\nShe can never be reproached for being masculine, or turning out of\nher sphere; nay, she may observe another of his grand rules, and,\ncautiously preserving her reputation free from spot, be reckoned a\ngood kind of woman.  Yet in what respect can she be termed good?\nShe abstains, it is true, without any great struggle, from\ncommitting gross crimes; but how does she fulfil her duties?\nDuties!--in truth she has enough to think of to adorn her body and\nnurse a weak constitution.\n\nWith respect to religion, she never presumed to judge for herself;\nbut conformed, as a dependent creature should, to the ceremonies of\nthe church which she was brought up in, piously believing, that\nwiser heads than her own have settled that business:  and not to\ndoubt is her point of perfection.  She therefore pays her tythe of\nmint and cummin, and thanks her God that she is not as other women\nare.  These are the blessed effects of a good education! these the\nvirtues of man's helpmate.  I must relieve myself by drawing a\ndifferent picture.\n\nLet fancy now present a woman with a tolerable understanding, for I\ndo not wish to leave the line of mediocrity, whose constitution,\nstrengthened by exercise, has allowed her body to acquire its full\nvigour; her mind, at the same time, gradually expanding itself to\ncomprehend the moral duties of life, and in what human virtue and\ndignity consist.  Formed thus by the relative duties of her\nstation, she marries from affection, without losing sight of\nprudence, and looking beyond matrimonial felicity, she secures her\nhusband's respect before it is necessary to exert mean arts to\nplease him, and feed a dying flame, which nature doomed to expire\nwhen the object became familiar, when friendship and forbearance\ntake place of a more ardent affection.  This is the natural death\nof love, and domestic peace is not destroyed by struggles to\nprevent its extinction.  I also suppose the husband to be virtuous;\nor she is still more in want of independent principles.\n\nFate, however, breaks this tie.  She is left a widow, perhaps,\nwithout a sufficient provision:  but she is not desolate!  The pang\nof nature is felt; but after time has softened sorrow into\nmelancholy resignation, her heart turns to her children with\nredoubled fondness, and anxious to provide for them, affection\ngives a sacred heroic cast to her maternal duties.  She thinks that\nnot only the eye sees her virtuous efforts, from whom all her\ncomfort now must flow, and whose approbation is life; but her\nimagination, a little abstracted and exalted by grief, dwells on\nthe fond hope, that the eyes which her trembling hand closed, may\nstill see how she subdues every wayward passion to fulfil the\ndouble duty of being the father as well as the mother of her\nchildren.  Raised to heroism by misfortunes, she represses the\nfirst faint dawning of a natural inclination, before it ripens into\nlove, and in the bloom of life forgets her sex--forgets the\npleasure of an awakening passion, which might again have been\ninspired and returned.  She no longer thinks of pleasing, and\nconscious dignity prevents her from priding herself on account of\nthe praise which her conduct demands.  Her children have her love,\nand her brightest hopes are beyond the grave, where her imagination\noften strays.\n\nI think I see her surrounded by her children, reaping the reward of\nher care.  The intelligent eye meets her's, whilst health and\ninnocence smile on their chubby cheeks, and as they grow up the\ncares of life are lessened by their grateful attention.  She lives\nto see the virtues which she endeavoured to plant on principles,\nfixed into habits, to see her children attain a strength of\ncharacter sufficient to enable them to endure adversity without\nforgetting their mother's example.\n\nThe task of life thus fulfilled, she calmly waits for the sleep of\ndeath, and rising from the grave may say, behold, thou gavest me a\ntalent, and here are five talents.\n\nI wish to sum up what I have said in a few words, for I here throw\ndown my gauntlet, and deny the existence of sexual virtues, not\nexcepting modesty.  For man and woman, truth, if I understand the\nmeaning of the word, must be the same; yet the fanciful female\ncharacter, so prettily drawn by poets and novelists, demanding the\nsacrifice of truth and sincerity, virtue becomes a relative idea,\nhaving no other foundation than utility, and of that utility men\npretend arbitrarily to judge, shaping it to their own convenience.\n\nWomen, I allow, may have different duties to fulfil; but they are\nHUMAN duties, and the principles that should regulate the discharge\nof them, I sturdily maintain, must be the same.\n\nTo become respectable, the exercise of their understanding is\nnecessary, there is no other foundation for independence of\ncharacter; I mean explicitly to say, that they must only bow to the\nauthority of reason, instead of being the MODEST slaves of opinion.\n\nIn the superior ranks of life how seldom do we meet with a man of\nsuperior abilities, or even common acquirements?  The reason\nappears to me clear; the state they are born in was an unnatural\none.  The human character has ever been formed by the employments\nthe individual, or class pursues; and if the faculties are not\nsharpened by necessity, they must remain obtuse.  The argument may\nfairly be extended to women; for seldom occupied by serious\nbusiness, the pursuit of pleasure gives that insignificancy to\ntheir character which renders the society of the GREAT so insipid.\nThe same want of firmness, produced by a similar cause, forces them\nboth to fly from themselves to noisy pleasures, and artificial\npassions, till vanity takes place of every social affection, and\nthe characteristics of humanity can scarcely be discerned.  Such\nare the blessings of civil governments, as they are at present\norganized, that wealth and female softness equally tend to debase\nmankind, and are produced by the same cause; but allowing women to\nbe rational creatures they should be incited to acquire virtues\nwhich they may call their own, for how can a rational being be\nennobled by any thing that is not obtained by its OWN exertions?\n\n\nCHAPTER 4.\n\nOBSERVATIONS ON THE STATE OF DEGRADATION TO WHICH WOMAN IS REDUCED\nBY VARIOUS CAUSES.\n\nThat woman is naturally weak, or degraded by a concurrence of\ncircumstances is, I think, clear.  But this position I shall simply\ncontrast with a conclusion, which I have frequently heard fall from\nsensible men in favour of an aristocracy:  that the mass of mankind\ncannot be any thing, or the obsequious slaves, who patiently allow\nthemselves to be penned up, would feel their own consequence, and\nspurn their chains.  Men, they further observe, submit every where\nto oppression, when they have only to lift up their heads to throw\noff the yoke; yet, instead of asserting their birthright, they\nquietly lick the dust, and say, let us eat and drink, for to-morrow\nwe die.  Women, I argue from analogy, are degraded by the same\npropensity to enjoy the present moment; and, at last, despise the\nfreedom which they have not sufficient virtue to struggle to\nattain.  But I must be more explicit.\n\nWith respect to the culture of the heart, it is unanimously allowed\nthat sex is out of the question; but the line of subordination in\nthe mental powers is never to be passed over.  Only \"absolute in\nloveliness,\" the portion of rationality granted to woman is,\nindeed, very scanty; for, denying her genius and judgment, it is\nscarcely possible to divine what remains to characterize intellect.\n\nThe stamina of immortality, if I may be allowed the phrase, is the\nperfectibility of human reason; for, was man created perfect, or\ndid a flood of knowledge break in upon him, when he arrived at\nmaturity, that precluded error, I should doubt whether his\nexistence would be continued after the dissolution of the body.\nBut in the present state of things, every difficulty in morals,\nthat escapes from human discussion, and equally baffles the\ninvestigation of profound thinking, and the lightning glance of\ngenius, is an argument on which I build my belief of the\nimmortality of the soul.  Reason is, consequentially, the simple\npower of improvement; or, more properly speaking, of discerning\ntruth.  Every individual is in this respect a world in itself.\nMore or less may be conspicuous in one being than other; but the\nnature of reason must be the same in all, if it be an emanation of\ndivinity, the tie that connects the creature with the Creator; for,\ncan that soul be stamped with the heavenly image, that is not\nperfected by the exercise of its own reason?  Yet outwardly\nornamented with elaborate care, and so adorned to delight man,\n\"that with honour he may love,\" (Vide Milton) the soul of woman is\nnot allowed to have this distinction, and man, ever placed between\nher and reason, she is always represented as only created to see\nthrough a gross medium, and to take things on trust.  But,\ndismissing these fanciful theories, and considering woman as a\nwhole, let it be what it will, instead of a part of man, the\ninquiry is, whether she has reason or not.  If she has, which, for\na moment, I will take for granted, she was not created merely to be\nthe solace of man, and the sexual should not destroy the human\ncharacter.\n\nInto this error men have, probably, been led by viewing education\nin a false light; not considering it as the first step to form a\nbeing advancing gradually toward perfection; (This word is not\nstrictly just, but I cannot find a better.) but only as a\npreparation for life.  On this sensual error, for I must call it\nso, has the false system of female manners been reared, which robs\nthe whole sex of its dignity, and classes the brown and fair with\nthe smiling flowers that only adorn the land.  This has ever been\nthe language of men, and the fear of departing from a supposed\nsexual character, has made even women of superior sense adopt the\nsame sentiments.  Thus understanding, strictly speaking, has been\ndenied to woman; and instinct, sublimated into wit and cunning, for\nthe purposes of life, has been substituted in its stead.\n\nThe power of generalizing ideas, of drawing comprehensive\nconclusions from individual observations, is the only acquirement\nfor an immortal being, that really deserves the name of knowledge.\nMerely to observe, without endeavouring to account for any thing,\nmay, (in a very incomplete manner) serve as the common sense of\nlife; but where is the store laid up that is to clothe the soul\nwhen it leaves the body?\n\nThis power has not only been denied to women; but writers have\ninsisted that it is inconsistent, with a few exceptions, with their\nsexual character.  Let men prove this, and I shall grant that woman\nonly exists for man.  I must, however, previously remark, that the\npower of generalizing ideas, to any great extent, is not very\ncommon amongst men or women.  But this exercise is the true\ncultivation of the understanding; and every thing conspires to\nrender the cultivation of the understanding more difficult in the\nfemale than the male world.\n\nI am naturally led by this assertion to the main subject of the\npresent chapter, and shall now attempt to point out some of the\ncauses that degrade the sex, and prevent women from generalizing\ntheir observations.\n\nI shall not go back to the remote annals of antiquity to trace the\nhistory of woman; it is sufficient to allow, that she has always\nbeen either a slave or a despot, and to remark, that each of these\nsituations equally retards the progress of reason.  The grand\nsource of female folly and vice has ever appeared to me to arise\nfrom narrowness of mind; and the very constitution of civil\ngovernments has put almost insuperable obstacles in the way to\nprevent the cultivation of the female understanding:  yet virtue\ncan be built on no other foundation!  The same obstacles are thrown\nin the way of the rich, and the same consequences ensue.\n\nNecessity has been proverbially termed the mother of invention; the\naphorism may be extended to virtue.  It is an acquirement, and an\nacquirement to which pleasure must be sacrificed, and who\nsacrifices pleasure when it is within the grasp, whose mind has not\nbeen opened and strengthened by adversity, or the pursuit of\nknowledge goaded on by necessity?  Happy is it when people have the\ncares of life to struggle with; for these struggles prevent their\nbecoming a prey to enervating vices, merely from idleness!  But, if\nfrom their birth men and women are placed in a torrid zone, with\nthe meridian sun of pleasure darting directly upon them, how can\nthey sufficiently brace their minds to discharge the duties of\nlife, or even to relish the affections that carry them out of\nthemselves?\n\nPleasure is the business of a woman's life, according to the\npresent modification of society, and while it continues to be so,\nlittle can be expected from such weak beings.  Inheriting, in a\nlineal descent from the first fair defect in nature, the\nsovereignty of beauty, they have, to maintain their power, resigned\ntheir natural rights, which the exercise of reason, might have\nprocured them, and chosen rather to be short-lived queens than\nlabour to attain the sober pleasures that arise from equality.\nExalted by their inferiority (this sounds like a contradiction)\nthey constantly demand homage as women, though experience should\nteach them that the men who pride themselves upon paying this\narbitrary insolent respect to the sex, with the most scrupulous\nexactness, are most inclined to tyrannize over, and despise the\nvery weakness they cherish.  Often do they repeat Mr. Hume's\nsentiments; when comparing the French and Athenian character, he\nalludes to women.  \"But what is more singular in this whimsical\nnation, say I to the Athenians, is, that a frolic of yours during\nthe Saturnalia, when the slaves are served by their masters, is\nseriously continued by them through the whole year, and through the\nwhole course of their lives; accompanied too with some\ncircumstances, which still further augment the absurdity and\nridicule.  Your sport only elevates for a few days, those whom\nfortune has thrown down, and whom she too, in sport, may really\nelevate forever above you.  But this nation gravely exalts those,\nwhom nature has subjected to them, and whose inferiority and\ninfirmities are absolutely incurable.  The women, though without\nvirtue, are their masters and sovereigns.\"\n\nAh! why do women, I write with affectionate solicitude, condescend\nto receive a degree of attention and respect from strangers,\ndifferent from that reciprocation of civility which the dictates of\nhumanity, and the politeness of civilization authorise between man\nand man?  And why do they not discover, when \"in the noon of\nbeauty's power,\" that they are treated like queens only to be\ndeluded by hollow respect, till they are led to resign, or not\nassume, their natural prerogatives?  Confined then in cages, like\nthe feathered race, they have nothing to do but to plume\nthemselves, and stalk with mock-majesty from perch to perch.  It is\ntrue, they are provided with food and raiment, for which they\nneither toil nor spin; but health, liberty, and virtue are given in\nexchange.  But, where, amongst mankind has been found sufficient\nstrength of mind to enable a being to resign these adventitious\nprerogatives; one who rising with the calm dignity of reason above\nopinion, dared to be proud of the privileges inherent in man? and\nit is vain to expect it whilst hereditary power chokes the\naffections, and nips reason in the bud.\n\nThe passions of men have thus placed women on thrones; and, till\nmankind become more reasonable, it is to be feared that women will\navail themselves of the power which they attain with the least\nexertion, and which is the most indisputable.  They will smile,\nyes, they will smile, though told that--\n\n\"In beauty's empire is no mean,\nAnd woman either slave or queen,\nIs quickly scorn'd when not ador'd.\"\n\nBut the adoration comes first, and the scorn is not anticipated.\n\nLewis the XIVth, in particular, spread factitious manners, and\ncaught in a specious way, the whole nation in his toils; for\nestablishing an artful chain of despotism, he made it the interest\nof the people at large, individually to respect his station, and\nsupport his power.  And women, whom he flattered by a puerile\nattention to the whole sex, obtained in his reign that prince-like\ndistinction so fatal to reason and virtue.\n\nA king is always a king, and a woman always a woman: (And a wit,\nalways a wit, might be added; for the vain fooleries of wits and\nbeauties to obtain attention, and make conquests, are much upon a\npar.)  his authority and her sex, ever stand between them and\nrational converse.  With a lover, I grant she should be so, and her\nsensibility will naturally lead her to endeavour to excite emotion,\nnot to gratify her vanity but her heart.  This I do not allow to be\ncoquetry, it is the artless impulse of nature, I only exclaim\nagainst the sexual desire of conquest, when the heart is out of the\nquestion.\n\nThis desire is not confined to women; \"I have endeavoured,\" says\nLord Chesterfield, \"to gain the hearts of twenty women, whose\npersons I would not have given a fig for.\"  The libertine who in a\ngust of passion, takes advantage of unsuspecting tenderness, is a\nsaint when compared with this cold-hearted rascal; for I like to\nuse significant words.  Yet only taught to please, women are always\non the watch to please, and with true heroic ardour endeavour to\ngain hearts merely to resign, or spurn them, when the victory is\ndecided, and conspicuous.\n\nI must descend to the minutiae of the subject.\n\nI lament that women are systematically degraded by receiving the\ntrivial attentions, which men think it manly to pay to the sex,\nwhen, in fact, they are insultingly supporting their own\nsuperiority.  It is not condescension to bow to an inferior.  So\nludicrous, in fact, do these ceremonies appear to me, that I\nscarcely am able to govern my muscles, when I see a man start with\neager, and serious solicitude to lift a handkerchief, or shut a\ndoor, when the LADY could have done it herself, had she only moved\na pace or two.\n\nA wild wish has just flown from my heart to my head, and I will not\nstifle it though it may excite a horse laugh.  I do earnestly wish\nto see the distinction of sex confounded in society, unless where\nlove animates the behaviour.  For this distinction is, I am firmly\npersuaded, the foundation of the weakness of character ascribed to\nwoman; is the cause why the understanding is neglected, whilst\naccomplishments are acquired with sedulous care:  and the same\ncause accounts for their preferring the graceful before the heroic\nvirtues.\n\nMankind, including every description, wish to be loved and\nrespected for SOMETHING; and the common herd will always take the\nnearest road to the completion of their wishes.  The respect paid\nto wealth and beauty is the most certain and unequivocal; and of\ncourse, will always attract the vulgar eye of common minds.\nAbilities and virtues are absolutely necessary to raise men from\nthe middle rank of life into notice; and the natural consequence is\nnotorious, the middle rank contains most virtue and abilities.  Men\nhave thus, in one station, at least, an opportunity of exerting\nthemselves with dignity, and of rising by the exertions which\nreally improve a rational creature; but the whole female sex are,\ntill their character is formed, in the same condition as the rich:\nfor they are born, I now speak of a state of civilization, with\ncertain sexual privileges, and whilst they are gratuitously granted\nthem, few will ever think of works of supererogation, to obtain the\nesteem of a small number of superior people.\n\nWhen do we hear of women, who starting out of obscurity, boldly\nclaim respect on account of their great abilities or daring\nvirtues?  Where are they to be found?  \"To be observed, to be\nattended to, to be taken notice of with sympathy, complacency, and\napprobation, are all the advantages which they seek.\"  True! my\nmale readers will probably exclaim; but let them, before they draw\nany conclusion, recollect, that this was not written originally as\ndescriptive of women, but of the rich.  In Dr. Smith's Theory of\nMoral Sentiments, I have found a general character of people of\nrank and fortune, that in my opinion, might with the greatest\npropriety be applied to the female sex.  I refer the sagacious\nreader to the whole comparison; but must be allowed to quote a\npassage to enforce an argument that I mean to insist on, as the one\nmost conclusive against a sexual character.  For if, excepting\nwarriors, no great men of any denomination, have ever appeared\namongst the nobility, may it not be fairly inferred, that their\nlocal situation swallowed up the man, and produced a character\nsimilar to that of women, who are LOCALIZED, if I may be allowed\nthe word, by the rank they are placed in, by COURTESY?  Women,\ncommonly called Ladies, are not to be contradicted in company, are\nnot allowed to exert any manual strength; and from them the\nnegative virtues only are expected, when any virtues are expected,\npatience, docility, good-humour, and flexibility; virtues\nincompatible with any vigorous exertion of intellect.  Besides by\nliving more with each other, and to being seldom absolutely alone,\nthey are more under the influence of sentiments than passions.\nSolitude and reflection are necessary to give to wishes the force\nof passions, and enable the imagination to enlarge the object and\nmake it the most desirable.  The same may be said of the rich; they\ndo not sufficiently deal in general ideas, collected by\nimpassionate thinking, or calm investigation, to acquire that\nstrength of character, on which great resolves are built.  But hear\nwhat an acute observer says of the great.\n\n\"Do the great seem insensible of the easy price at which they may\nacquire the public admiration? or do they seem to imagine, that to\nthem, as to other men, it must be the purchase either of sweat or\nof blood?  By what important accomplishments is the young nobleman\ninstructed to support the dignity of his rank, and to render\nhimself worthy of that superiority over his fellow citizens, to\nwhich the virtue of his ancestors had raised them? Is it by\nknowledge, by industry, by patience, by self-denial, or by virtue\nof any kind?  As all his words, as all his motions are attended to,\nhe learns an habitual regard for every circumstance of ordinary\nbehaviour, and studies to perform all those small duties with the\nmost exact propriety.  As he is conscious how much he is observed,\nand how much mankind are disposed to favour all his inclinations,\nhe acts, upon the most indifferent occasions, with that freedom and\nelevation which the thought of this naturally inspires.  His air,\nhis manner, his deportment all mark that elegant and graceful sense\nof his own superiority, which those who are born to an inferior\nstation can hardly ever arrive at.  These are the arts by which he\nproposes to make mankind more easily submit to his authority, and\nto govern their inclinations according to his own pleasure:  and in\nthis he is seldom disappointed.  These arts, supported by rank and\npre-eminence, are, upon ordinary occasions, sufficient to govern\nthe world.  Lewis XIV. during the greater part of his reign, was\nregarded, not only in France, but over all Europe, as the most\nperfect model of a great prince.  But what were the talents and\nvirtues, by which he acquired this great reputation? Was it by the\nscrupulous and inflexible justice of all his undertakings, by the\nimmense dangers and difficulties with which they were attended, or\nby the unwearied and unrelenting application with which he pursued\nthem?  Was it by his extensive knowledge, by his exquisite\njudgment, or by his heroic valour?  It was by none of these\nqualities.  But he was, first of all, the most powerful prince in\nEurope, and consequently held the highest rank among kings; and\nthen, says his historian, 'he surpassed all his courtiers in the\ngracefulness of his shape, and the majestic beauty of his features.\nThe sound of his voice noble and affecting, gained those hearts\nwhich his presence intimidated.  He had a step and a deportment,\nwhich could suit only him and his rank, and which would have been\nridiculous in any other person.  The embarrassment which he\noccasioned to those who spoke to him, flattered that secret\nsatisfaction with which he felt his own superiority.' These\nfrivolous accomplishments, supported by his rank, and, no doubt,\ntoo, by a degree of other talents and virtues, which seems,\nhowever, not to have been much above mediocrity, established this\nprince in the esteem of his own age, and have drawn even from\nposterity, a good deal of respect for his memory.  Compared with\nthese, in his own times, and in his own presence, no other virtue,\nit seems, appeared to have any merit.  Knowledge, industry, valour,\nand beneficence, trembling, were abashed, and lost all dignity\nbefore them.\"\n\nWoman, also, thus \"in herself complete,\" by possessing all these\nFRIVOLOUS accomplishments, so changes the nature of things,\n\n--\"That what she wills to do or say\nSeems wisest, virtuousest, discreetest, best;\nAll higher knowledge in HER PRESENCE falls\nDegraded.  Wisdom in discourse with her\nLoses discountenanc'd, and like folly shows;\nAuthority and reason on her wait.\"--\n\nAnd all this is built on her loveliness!\n\nIn the middle rank of life, to continue the comparison, men, in\ntheir youth, are prepared for professions, and marriage is not\nconsidered as the grand feature in their lives; whilst women, on\nthe contrary, have no other scheme to sharpen their faculties.  It\nis not business, extensive plans, or any of the excursive flights\nof ambition, that engross their attention; no, their thoughts are\nnot employed in rearing such noble structures.  To rise in the\nworld, and have the liberty of running from pleasure to pleasure,\nthey must marry advantageously, and to this object their time is\nsacrificed, and their persons often legally prostituted.  A man,\nwhen he enters any profession, has his eye steadily fixed on some\nfuture advantage (and the mind gains great strength by having all\nits efforts directed to one point) and, full of his business,\npleasure is considered as mere relaxation; whilst women seek for\npleasure as the main purpose of existence.  In fact, from the\neducation which they receive from society, the love of pleasure may\nbe said to govern them all; but does this prove that there is a sex\nin souls?  It would be just as rational to declare, that the\ncourtiers in France, when a destructive system of despotism had\nformed their character, were not men, because liberty, virtue, and\nhumanity, were sacrificed to pleasure and vanity.  Fatal passions,\nwhich have ever domineered over the WHOLE race!\n\nThe same love of pleasure, fostered by the whole tendency of their\neducation, gives a trifling turn to the conduct of women in most\ncircumstances:  for instance, they are ever anxious about secondary\nthings; and on the watch for adventures, instead of being occupied\nby duties.\n\nA man, when he undertakes a journey, has, in general the end in\nview; a woman thinks more of the incidental occurrences, the\nstrange things that may possibly occur on the road; the impression\nthat she may make on her fellow travellers; and, above all, she is\nanxiously intent on the care of the finery that she carries with\nher, which is more than ever a part of herself, when going to\nfigure on a new scene; when, to use an apt French turn of\nexpression, she is going to produce a sensation.  Can dignity of\nmind exist with such trivial cares?\n\nIn short, women, in general, as well as the rich of both sexes,\nhave acquired all the follies and vices of civilization, and missed\nthe useful fruit.  It is not necessary for me always to premise,\nthat I speak of the condition of the whole sex, leaving exceptions\nout of the question.  Their senses are inflamed, and their\nunderstandings neglected; consequently they become the prey of\ntheir senses, delicately termed sensibility, and are blown about by\nevery momentary gust of feeling.  They are, therefore, in a much\nworse condition than they would be in, were they in a state nearer\nto nature.  Ever restless and anxious, their over exercised\nsensibility not only renders them uncomfortable themselves, but\ntroublesome, to use a soft phrase, to others.  All their thoughts\nturn on things calculated to excite emotion; and, feeling, when\nthey should reason, their conduct is unstable, and their opinions\nare wavering, not the wavering produced by deliberation or\nprogressive views, but by contradictory emotions.  By fits and\nstarts they are warm in many pursuits; yet this warmth, never\nconcentrated into perseverance, soon exhausts itself; exhaled by\nits own heat, or meeting with some other fleeting passion, to which\nreason has never given any specific gravity, neutrality ensues.\nMiserable, indeed, must be that being whose cultivation of mind has\nonly tended to inflame its passions!  A distinction should be made\nbetween inflaming and strengthening them.  The passions thus\npampered, whilst the judgment is left unformed, what can be\nexpected to ensue?  Undoubtedly, a mixture of madness and folly!\n\nThis observation should not be confined to the FAIR sex; however,\nat present, I only mean to apply it to them.\n\nNovels, music, poetry and gallantry, all tend to make women the\ncreatures of sensation, and their character is thus formed during\nthe time they are acquiring accomplishments, the only improvement\nthey are excited, by their station in society, to acquire.  This\noverstretched sensibility naturally relaxes the other powers of the\nmind, and prevents intellect from attaining that sovereignty which\nit ought to attain, to render a rational creature useful to others,\nand content with its own station; for the exercise of the\nunderstanding, as life advances, is the only method pointed out by\nnature to calm the passions.\n\nSatiety has a very different effect, and I have often been forcibly\nstruck by an emphatical description of damnation, when the spirit\nis represented as continually hovering with abortive eagerness\nround the defiled body, unable to enjoy any thing without the\norgans of sense.  Yet, to their senses, are women made slaves,\nbecause it is by their sensibility that they obtain present power.\n\nAnd will moralists pretend to assert, that this is the condition in\nwhich one half of the human race should be encouraged to remain\nwith listless inactivity and stupid acquiescence?  Kind\ninstructors! what were we created for?  To remain, it may be said,\ninnocent; they mean in a state of childhood.  We might as well\nnever have been born, unless it were necessary that we should be\ncreated to enable man to acquire the noble privilege of reason, the\npower of discerning good from evil, whilst we lie down in the dust\nfrom whence we were taken, never to rise again.\n\nIt would be an endless task to trace the variety of meannesses,\ncares, and sorrows, into which women are plunged by the prevailing\nopinion, that they were created rather to feel than reason, and\nthat all the power they obtain, must be obtained by their charms\nand weakness;\n\n\"Fine by defect, and amiably weak!\"\n\nAnd, made by this amiable weakness entirely dependent, excepting\nwhat they gain by illicit sway, on man, not only for protection,\nbut advice, is it surprising that, neglecting the duties that\nreason alone points out, and shrinking from trials calculated to\nstrengthen their minds, they only exert themselves to give their\ndefects a graceful covering, which may serve to heighten their\ncharms in the eye of the voluptuary, though it sink them below the\nscale of moral excellence?\n\nFragile in every sense of the word, they are obliged to look up to\nman for every comfort.  In the most trifling dangers they cling to\ntheir support, with parasitical tenacity, piteously demanding\nsuccour; and their NATURAL protector extends his arm, or lifts up\nhis voice, to guard the lovely trembler--from what?  Perhaps the\nfrown of an old cow, or the jump of a mouse; a rat, would be a\nserious danger.  In the name of reason, and even common sense, what\ncan save such beings from contempt; even though they be soft and\nfair?\n\nThese fears, when not affected, may be very pretty; but they shew a\ndegree of imbecility, that degrades a rational creature in a way\nwomen are not aware of--for love and esteem are very distinct\nthings.\n\nI am fully persuaded, that we should hear of none of these\ninfantine airs, if girls were allowed to take sufficient exercise\nand not confined in close rooms till their muscles are relaxed and\ntheir powers of digestion destroyed.  To carry the remark still\nfurther, if fear in girls, instead of being cherished, perhaps,\ncreated, were treated in the same manner as cowardice in boys, we\nshould quickly see women with more dignified aspects.  It is true,\nthey could not then with equal propriety be termed the sweet\nflowers that smile in the walk of man; but they would be more\nrespectable members of society, and discharge the important duties\nof life by the light of their own reason.  \"Educate women like\nmen,\" says Rousseau, \"and the more they resemble our sex the less\npower will they have over us.\"  This is the very point I aim at.  I\ndo not wish them to have power over men; but over themselves.\n\nIn the same strain have I heard men argue against instructing the\npoor; for many are the forms that aristocracy assumes.  \"Teach them\nto read and write,\" say they, \"and you take them out of the station\nassigned them by nature.\"  An eloquent Frenchman, has answered\nthem; I will borrow his sentiments.  But they know not, when they\nmake man a brute, that they may expect every instant to see him\ntransformed into a ferocious beast.  Without knowledge there can be\nno morality!\n\nIgnorance is a frail base for virtue!  Yet, that it is the\ncondition for which woman was organized, has been insisted upon by\nthe writers who have most vehemently argued in favour of the\nsuperiority of man; a superiority not in degree, but essence;\nthough, to soften the argument, they have laboured to prove, with\nchivalrous generosity, that the sexes ought not to be compared; man\nwas made to reason, woman to feel:  and that together, flesh and\nspirit, they make the most perfect whole, by blending happily\nreason and sensibility into one character.\n\nAnd what is sensibility?  \"Quickness of sensation; quickness of\nperception; delicacy.\"  Thus is it defined by Dr. Johnson; and the\ndefinition gives me no other idea than of the most exquisitely\npolished instinct.  I discern not a trace of the image of God in\neither sensation or matter.  Refined seventy times seven, they are\nstill material; intellect dwells not there; nor will fire ever make\nlead gold!\n\nI come round to my old argument; if woman be allowed to have an\nimmortal soul, she must have as the employment of life, an\nunderstanding to improve.  And when, to render the present state\nmore complete, though every thing proves it to be but a fraction of\na mighty sum, she is incited by present gratification to forget her\ngrand destination.  Nature is counteracted, or she was born only to\nprocreate and rot.  Or, granting brutes, of every description, a\nsoul, though not a reasonable one, the exercise of instinct and\nsensibility may be the step, which they are to take, in this life,\ntowards the attainment of reason in the next; so that through all\neternity they will lag behind man, who, why we cannot tell, had the\npower given him of attaining reason in his first mode of existence.\n\nWhen I treat of the peculiar duties of women, as I should treat of\nthe peculiar duties of a citizen or father, it will be found that I\ndo not mean to insinuate, that they should be taken out of their\nfamilies, speaking of the majority.  \"He that hath wife and\nchildren,\" says Lord Bacon, \"hath given hostages to fortune; for\nthey are impediments to great enterprises, either of virtue or\nmischief.  Certainly the best works, and of greatest merit for the\npublic, have proceeded from the unmarried or childless men.\" I say\nthe same of women.  But, the welfare of society is not built on\nextraordinary exertions; and were it more reasonably organized,\nthere would be still less need of great abilities, or heroic\nvirtues.  In the regulation of a family, in the education of\nchildren, understanding, in an unsophisticated sense, is\nparticularly required:  strength both of body and mind; yet the men\nwho, by their writings, have most earnestly laboured to domesticate\nwomen, have endeavoured by arguments dictated by a gross appetite,\nthat satiety had rendered fastidious, to weaken their bodies and\ncramp their minds.  But, if even by these sinister methods they\nreally PERSUADED women, by working on their feelings, to stay at\nhome, and fulfil the duties of a mother and mistress of a family, I\nshould cautiously oppose opinions that led women to right conduct,\nby prevailing on them to make the discharge of a duty the business\nof life, though reason were insulted.  Yet, and I appeal to\nexperience, if by neglecting the understanding they are as much,\nnay, more attached from these domestic duties, than they could be\nby the most serious intellectual pursuit, though it may be\nobserved, that the mass of mankind will never vigorously pursue an\nintellectual object, I may be allowed to infer, that reason is\nabsolutely necessary to enable a woman to perform any duty\nproperly, and I must again repeat, that sensibility is not reason.\n\nThe comparison with the rich still occurs to me; for, when men\nneglect the duties of humanity, women will do the same; a common\nstream hurries them both along with thoughtless celerity.  Riches\nand honours prevent a man from enlarging his understanding, and\nenervate all his powers, by reversing the order of nature, which\nhas ever made true pleasure the reward of labour.\nPleasure--enervating pleasure is, likewise, within woman's reach\nwithout earning it.  But, till hereditary possessions are spread\nabroad, how can we expect men to be proud of virtue?  And, till\nthey are, women will govern them by the most direct means,\nneglecting their dull domestic duties, to catch the pleasure that\nis on the wing of time.\n\n\"The power of women,\" says some author, \"is her sensibility;\" and\nmen not aware of the consequence, do all they can to make this\npower swallow up every other.  Those who constantly employ their\nsensibility will have most: for example; poets, painters, and\ncomposers.  Yet, when the sensibility is thus increased at the\nexpense of reason, and even the imagination, why do philosophical\nmen complain of their fickleness?  The sexual attention of man\nparticularly acts on female sensibility, and this sympathy has been\nexercised from their youth up.  A husband cannot long pay those\nattentions with the passion necessary to excite lively emotions,\nand the heart, accustomed to lively emotions, turns to a new lover,\nor pines in secret, the prey of virtue or prudence.  I mean when\nthe heart has really been rendered susceptible, and the taste\nformed; for I am apt to conclude, from what I have seen in\nfashionable life, that vanity is oftener fostered than sensibility\nby the mode of education, and the intercourse between the sexes,\nwhich I have reprobated; and that coquetry more frequently proceeds\nfrom vanity than from that inconstancy, which overstrained\nsensibility naturally produces.\n\nAnother argument that has had a great weight with me, must, I\nthink, have some force with every considerate benevolent heart.\nGirls, who have been thus weakly educated, are often cruelly left\nby their parents without any provision; and, of course, are\ndependent on, not only the reason, but the bounty of their\nbrothers.  These brothers are, to view the fairest side of the\nquestion, good sort of men, and give as a favour, what children of\nthe same parents had an equal right to.  In this equivocal\nhumiliating situation, a docile female may remain some time, with a\ntolerable degree of comfort.  But, when the brother marries, a\nprobable circumstance, from being considered as the mistress of the\nfamily, she is viewed with averted looks as an intruder, an\nunnecessary burden on the benevolence of the master of the house,\nand his new partner.\n\nWho can recount the misery, which many unfortunate beings, whose\nminds and bodies are equally weak, suffer in such\nsituations--unable to work and ashamed to beg?  The wife, a\ncold-hearted, narrow-minded woman, and this is not an unfair\nsupposition; for the present mode of education does not tend to\nenlarge the heart any more than the understanding, is jealous of\nthe little kindness which her husband shows to his relations; and\nher sensibility not rising to humanity, she is displeased at seeing\nthe property of HER children lavished on an helpless sister.\n\nThese are matters of fact, which have come under my eye again and\nagain.  The consequence is obvious, the wife has recourse to\ncunning to undermine the habitual affection, which she is afraid\nopenly to oppose; and neither tears nor caresses are spared till\nthe spy is worked out of her home, and thrown on the world,\nunprepared for its difficulties; or sent, as a great effort of\ngenerosity, or from some regard to propriety, with a small stipend,\nand an uncultivated mind into joyless solitude.\n\nThese two women may be much upon a par, with respect to reason and\nhumanity; and changing situations, might have acted just the same\nselfish part; but had they been differently educated, the case\nwould also have been very different.  The wife would not have had\nthat sensibility, of which self is the centre, and reason might\nhave taught her not to expect, and not even to be flattered by the\naffection of her husband, if it led him to violate prior duties.\nShe would wish not to love him, merely because he loved her, but on\naccount of his virtues; and the sister might have been able to\nstruggle for herself, instead of eating the bitter bread of\ndependence.\n\nI am, indeed, persuaded that the heart, as well as the\nunderstanding, is opened by cultivation; and by, which may not\nappear so clear, strengthening the organs; I am not now talking of\nmomentary flashes of sensibility, but of affections.  And, perhaps,\nin the education of both sexes, the most difficult task is so to\nadjust instruction as not to narrow the understanding, whilst the\nheart is warmed by the generous juices of spring, just raised by\nthe electric fermentation of the season; nor to dry up the feelings\nby employing the mind in investigations remote from life.\n\nWith respect to women, when they receive a careful education, they\nare either made fine ladies, brimful of sensibility, and teeming\nwith capricious fancies; or mere notable women.  The latter are\noften friendly, honest creatures, and have a shrewd kind of good\nsense joined with worldly prudence, that often render them more\nuseful members of society than the fine sentimental lady, though\nthey possess neither greatness of mind nor taste.  The intellectual\nworld is shut against them; take them out of their family or\nneighbourhood, and they stand still; the mind finding no\nemployment, for literature affords a fund of amusement, which they\nhave never sought to relish, but frequently to despise.  The\nsentiments and taste of more cultivated minds appear ridiculous,\neven in those whom chance and family connexions have led them to\nlove; but in mere acquaintance they think it all affectation.\n\nA man of sense can only love such a woman on account of her sex,\nand respect her, because she is a trusty servant.  He lets her, to\npreserve his own peace, scold the servants, and go to church in\nclothes made of the very best materials.  A man of her own size of\nunderstanding would, probably, not agree so well with her; for he\nmight wish to encroach on her prerogative, and manage some domestic\nconcerns himself.  Yet women, whose minds are not enlarged by\ncultivation, or the natural selfishness of sensibility expanded by\nreflection, are very unfit to manage a family; for by an undue\nstretch of power, they are always tyrannizing to support a\nsuperiority that only rests on the arbitrary distinction of\nfortune.  The evil is sometimes more serious, and domestics are\ndeprived of innocent indulgences, and made to work beyond their\nstrength, in order to enable the notable woman to keep a better\ntable, and outshine her neighbours in finery and parade.  If she\nattend to her children, it is, in general, to dress them in a\ncostly manner--and, whether, this attention arises from vanity or\nfondness, it is equally pernicious.\n\nBesides, how many women of this description pass their days, or, at\nleast their evenings, discontentedly.  Their husbands acknowledge\nthat they are good managers, and chaste wives; but leave home to\nseek for more agreeable, may I be allowed to use a significant\nFrench word, piquant society; and the patient drudge, who fulfils\nher task, like a blind horse in a mill, is defrauded of her just\nreward; for the wages due to her are the caresses of her husband;\nand women who have so few resources in themselves, do not very\npatiently bear this privation of a natural right.\n\nA fine lady, on the contrary, has been taught to look down with\ncontempt on the vulgar employments of life; though she has only\nbeen incited to acquire accomplishments that rise a degree above\nsense; for even corporeal accomplishments cannot be acquired with\nany degree of precision, unless the understanding has been\nstrengthened by exercise.  Without a foundation of principles taste\nis superficial; and grace must arise from something deeper than\nimitation.  The imagination, however, is heated, and the feelings\nrendered fastidious, if not sophisticated; or, a counterpoise of\njudgment is not acquired, when the heart still remains artless,\nthough it becomes too tender.\n\nThese women are often amiable; and their hearts are really more\nsensible to general benevolence, more alive to the sentiments that\ncivilize life, than the square elbowed family drudge; but, wanting\na due proportion of reflection and self-government, they only\ninspire love; and are the mistresses of their husbands, whilst they\nhave any hold on their affections; and the platonic friends of his\nmale acquaintance.  These are the fair defects in nature; the women\nwho appear to be created not to enjoy the fellowship of man, but to\nsave him from sinking into absolute brutality, by rubbing off the\nrough angles of his character; and by playful dalliance to give\nsome dignity to the appetite that draws him to them.  Gracious\nCreator of the whole human race! hast thou created such a being as\nwoman, who can trace thy wisdom in thy works, and feel that thou\nalone art by thy nature, exalted above her--for no better purpose?\nCan she believe that she was only made to submit to man her equal;\na being, who, like her, was sent into the world to acquire virtue?\nCan she consent to be occupied merely to please him; merely to\nadorn the earth, when her soul is capable of rising to thee?  And\ncan she rest supinely dependent on man for reason, when she ought\nto mount with him the arduous steeps of knowledge?\n\nYet, if love be the supreme good, let women be only educated to\ninspire it, and let every charm be polished to intoxicate the\nsenses; but, if they are moral beings, let them have a chance to\nbecome intelligent; and let love to man be only a part of that\nglowing flame of universal love, which, after encircling humanity,\nmounts in grateful incense to God.\n\nTo fulfil domestic duties much resolution is necessary, and a\nserious kind of perseverance that requires a more firm support than\nemotions, however lively and true to nature.  To give an example of\norder, the soul of virtue, some austerity of behaviour must be\nadopted, scarcely to be expected from a being who, from its\ninfancy, has been made the weathercock of its own sensations.\nWhoever rationally means to be useful, must have a plan of conduct;\nand, in the discharge of the simplest duty, we are often obliged to\nact contrary to the present impulse of tenderness or compassion.\nSeverity is frequently the most certain, as well as the most\nsublime proof of affection; and the want of this power over the\nfeelings, and of that lofty, dignified affection, which makes a\nperson prefer the future good of the beloved object to a present\ngratification, is the reason why so many fond mothers spoil their\nchildren, and has made it questionable, whether negligence or\nindulgence is most hurtful:  but I am inclined to think, that the\nlatter has done most harm.\n\nMankind seem to agree, that children should be left under the\nmanagement of women during their childhood.  Now, from all the\nobservation that I have been able to make, women of sensibility are\nthe most unfit for this task, because they will infallibly, carried\naway by their feelings, spoil a child's temper.  The management of\nthe temper, the first and most important branch of education,\nrequires the sober steady eye of reason; a plan of conduct equally\ndistant from tyranny and indulgence; yet these are the extremes\nthat people of sensibility alternately fall into; always shooting\nbeyond the mark.  I have followed this train of reasoning much\nfurther, till I have concluded, that a person of genius is the most\nimproper person to be employed in education, public or private.\nMinds of this rare species see things too much in masses, and\nseldom, if ever, have a good temper.  That habitual cheerfulness,\ntermed good humour, is, perhaps, as seldom united with great mental\npowers, as with strong feelings.  And those people who follow, with\ninterest and admiration, the flights of genius; or, with cooler\napprobation suck in the instruction, which has been elaborately\nprepared for them by the profound thinker, ought not to be\ndisgusted, if they find the former choleric, and the latter morose;\nbecause liveliness of fancy, and a tenacious comprehension of mind,\nare scarcely compatible with that pliant urbanity which leads a\nman, at least to bend to the opinions and prejudices of others,\ninstead of roughly confronting them.\n\nBut, treating of education or manners, minds of a superior class\nare not to be considered, they may be left to chance; it is the\nmultitude, with moderate abilities, who call for instruction, and\ncatch the colour of the atmosphere they breathe.  This respectable\nconcourse, I contend, men and women, should not have their\nsensations heightened in the hot-bed of luxurious indolence, at the\nexpence of their understanding; for, unless there be a ballast of\nunderstanding, they will never become either virtuous or free:  an\naristocracy, founded on property, or sterling talents, will ever\nsweep before it, the alternately timid and ferocious slaves of\nfeeling.\n\nNumberless are the arguments, to take another view of the subject,\nbrought forward with a show of reason; because supposed to be\ndeduced from nature, that men have used morally and physically to\ndegrade the sex.  I must notice a few.\n\nThe female understanding has often been spoken of with contempt, as\narriving sooner at maturity than the male.  I shall not answer this\nargument by alluding to the early proofs of reason, as well as\ngenius, in Cowley, Milton, and Pope, (Many other names might be\nadded.) but only appeal to experience to decide whether young men,\nwho are early introduced into company (and examples now abound) do\nnot acquire the same precocity.  So notorious is this fact, that\nthe bare mentioning of it must bring before people, who at all mix\nin the world, the idea of a number of swaggering apes of men whose\nunderstandings are narrowed by being brought into the society of\nmen when they ought to have been spinning a top or twirling a hoop.\n\nIt has also been asserted, by some naturalists, that men do not\nattain their full growth and strength till thirty; but that women\narrive at maturity by twenty.  I apprehend that they reason on\nfalse ground, led astray by the male prejudice, which deems beauty\nthe perfection of woman--mere beauty of features and complexion,\nthe vulgar acceptation of the world, whilst male beauty is allowed\nto have some connexion with the mind.  Strength of body, and that\ncharacter of countenance, which the French term a physionomie,\nwomen do not acquire before thirty, any more than men.  The little\nartless tricks of children, it is true, are particularly pleasing\nand attractive; yet, when the pretty freshness of youth is worn\noff, these artless graces become studied airs, and disgust every\nperson of taste.  In the countenance of girls we only look for\nvivacity and bashful modesty; but, the springtide of life over, we\nlook for soberer sense in the face, and for traces of passion,\ninstead of the dimples of animal spirits; expecting to see\nindividuality of character, the only fastener of the affections.\nWe then wish to converse, not to fondle; to give scope to our\nimaginations, as well as to the sensations of our hearts.\n\nAt twenty the beauty of both sexes is equal; but the libertinism of\nman leads him to make the distinction, and superannuated coquettes\nare commonly of the same opinion; for when they can no longer\ninspire love, they pay for the vigour and vivacity of youth.  The\nFrench who admit more of mind into their notions of beauty, give\nthe preference to women of thirty.  I mean to say, that they allow\nwomen to be in their most perfect state, when vivacity gives place\nto reason, and to that majestic seriousness of character, which\nmarks maturity; or, the resting point.  In youth, till twenty the\nbody shoots out; till thirty the solids are attaining a degree of\ndensity; and the flexible muscles, growing daily more rigid, give\ncharacter to the countenance; that is, they trace the operations of\nthe mind with the iron pen of fate, and tell us not only what\npowers are within, but how they have been employed.\n\nIt is proper to observe, that animals who arrive slowly at\nmaturity, are the longest lived, and of the noblest species.  Men\ncannot, however, claim any natural superiority from the grandeur of\nlongevity; for in this respect nature has not distinguished the\nmale.\n\nPolygamy is another physical degradation; and a plausible argument\nfor a custom, that blasts every domestic virtue, is drawn from the\nwell-attested fact, that in the countries where it is established,\nmore females are born than males.  This appears to be an indication\nof nature, and to nature apparently reasonable speculations must\nyield.  A further conclusion obviously presents itself; if polygamy\nbe necessary, woman must be inferior to man, and made for him.\n\nWith respect to the formation of the foetus in the womb, we are\nvery ignorant; but it appears to me probable, that an accidental\nphysical cause may account for this phenomenon, and prove it not to\nbe a law of nature.  I have met with some pertinent observations on\nthe subject in Forster's Account of the Isles of the South Sea,\nthat will explain my meaning.  After observing that of the two\nsexes amongst animals, the most vigorous and hottest constitution\nalways prevails, and produces its kind; he adds,--\"If this be\napplied to the inhabitants of Africa, it is evident that the men\nthere, accustomed to polygamy, are enervated by the use of so many\nwomen, and therefore less vigorous; the women on the contrary, are\nof a hotter constitution, not only on account of their more\nirritable nerves, more sensitive organization, and more lively\nfancy; but likewise because they are deprived in their matrimony of\nthat share of physical love which in a monogamous condition, would\nall be theirs; and thus for the above reasons, the generality of\nchildren are born females.\"\n\n\"In the greater part of Europe it has been proved by the most\naccurate lists of mortality, that the proportion of men to women is\nnearly equal, or, if any difference takes place, the males born are\nmore numerous, in the proportion of 105 to 100.\"\n\nThe necessity of polygamy, therefore, does not appear; yet when a\nman seduces a woman, it should I think, be termed a LEFT-HANDED\nmarriage, and the man should be LEGALLY obliged to maintain the\nwoman and her children, unless adultery, a natural divorcement,\nabrogated the law.  And this law should remain in force as long as\nthe weakness of women caused the word seduction to be used as an\nexcuse for their frailty and want of principle; nay, while they\ndepend on man for a subsistence, instead of earning it by the\nexercise of their own hands or heads.  But these women should not\nin the full meaning of the relationship, be termed wives, or the\nvery purpose of marriage would be subverted, and all those\nendearing charities that flow from personal fidelity, and give a\nsanctity to the tie, when neither love nor friendship unites the\nhearts, would melt into selfishness.  The woman who is faithful to\nthe father of her children demands respect, and should not be\ntreated like a prostitute; though I readily grant, that if it be\nnecessary for a man and woman to live together in order to bring up\ntheir offspring, nature never intended that a man should have more\nthan one wife.\n\nStill, highly as I respect marriage, as the foundation of almost\nevery social virtue, I cannot avoid feeling the most lively\ncompassion for those unfortunate females who are broken off from\nsociety, and by one error torn from all those affections and\nrelationships that improve the heart and mind.  It does not\nfrequently even deserve the name of error; for many innocent girls\nbecome the dupes of a sincere affectionate heart, and still more\nare, as it may emphatically be termed, RUINED before they know the\ndifference between virtue and vice:  and thus prepared by their\neducation for infamy, they become infamous.  Asylums and Magdalens\nare not the proper remedies for these abuses.  It is justice, not\ncharity, that is wanting in the world!\n\nA woman who has lost her honour, imagines that she cannot fall\nlower, and as for recovering her former station, it is impossible;\nno exertion can wash this stain away.  Losing thus every spur, and\nhaving no other means of support, prostitution becomes her only\nrefuge, and the character is quickly depraved by circumstances over\nwhich the poor wretch has little power, unless she possesses an\nuncommon portion of sense and loftiness of spirit.  Necessity never\nmakes prostitution the business of men's lives; though numberless\nare the women who are thus rendered systematically vicious.  This,\nhowever, arises, in a great degree, from the state of idleness in\nwhich women are educated, who are always taught to look up to man\nfor a maintenance, and to consider their persons as the proper\nreturn for his exertions to support them.  Meretricious airs, and\nthe whole science of wantonness, has then a more powerful stimulus\nthan either appetite or vanity; and this remark gives force to the\nprevailing opinion, that with chastity all is lost that is\nrespectable in woman.  Her character depends on the observance of\none virtue, though the only passion fostered in her heart--is love.\nNay the honour of a woman is not made even to depend on her will.\n\nWhen Richardson makes Clarissa tell Lovelace that he had robbed her\nof her honour, he must have had strange notions of honour and\nvirtue.  For, miserable beyond all names of misery is the condition\nof a being, who could be degraded without its own consent!  This\nexcess of strictness I have heard vindicated as a salutary error.\nI shall answer in the words of Leibnitz--\"Errors are often useful;\nbut it is commonly to remedy other errors.\"\n\nMost of the evils of life arise from a desire of present enjoyment\nthat outruns itself.  The obedience required of women in the\nmarriage state, comes under this description; the mind, naturally\nweakened by depending on authority, never exerts its own powers,\nand the obedient wife is thus rendered a weak indolent mother.  Or,\nsupposing that this is not always the consequence, a future state\nof existence is scarcely taken into the reckoning when only\nnegative virtues are cultivated.  For in treating of morals,\nparticularly when women are alluded to, writers have too often\nconsidered virtue in a very limited sense, and made the foundation\nof it SOLELY worldly utility; nay, a still more fragile base has\nbeen given to this stupendous fabric, and the wayward fluctuating\nfeelings of men have been made the standard of virtue.  Yes, virtue\nas well as religion, has been subjected to the decisions of taste.\n\nIt would almost provoke a smile of contempt, if the vain\nabsurdities of man did not strike us on all sides, to observe, how\neager men are to degrade the sex from whom they pretend to receive\nthe chief pleasure of life; and I have frequently, with full\nconviction, retorted Pope's sarcasm on them; or, to speak\nexplicitly, it has appeared to me applicable to the whole human\nrace.  A love of pleasure or sway seems to divide mankind, and the\nhusband who lords it in his little harem, thinks only of his\npleasure or his convenience.  To such lengths, indeed, does an\nintemperate love of pleasure carry some prudent men, or worn out\nlibertines, who marry to have a safe companion, that they seduce\ntheir own wives.  Hymen banishes modesty, and chaste love takes its\nflight.\n\nLove, considered as an animal appetite, cannot long feed on itself\nwithout expiring.  And this extinction, in its own flame, may be\ntermed the violent death of love.  But the wife who has thus been\nrendered licentious, will probably endeavour to fill the void left\nby the loss of her husband's attentions; for she cannot contentedly\nbecome merely an upper servant after having been treated like a\ngoddess.  She is still handsome, and, instead of transferring her\nfondness to her children, she only dreams of enjoying the sunshine\nof life.  Besides, there are many husbands so devoid of sense and\nparental affection, that during the first effervescence of\nvoluptuous fondness, they refuse to let their wives suckle their\nchildren.  They are only to dress and live to please them:  and\nlove, even innocent love, soon sinks into lasciviousness when the\nexercise of a duty is sacrificed to its indulgence.\n\nPersonal attachment is a very happy foundation for friendship; yet,\nwhen even two virtuous young people marry, it would, perhaps, be\nhappy if some circumstance checked their passion; if the\nrecollection of some prior attachment, or disappointed affection,\nmade it on one side, at least, rather a match founded on esteem.\nIn that case they would look beyond the present moment, and try to\nrender the whole of life respectable, by forming a plan to regulate\na friendship which only death ought to dissolve.\n\nFriendship is a serious affection; the most sublime of all\naffections, because it is founded on principle, and cemented by\ntime.  The very reverse may be said of love.  In a great degree,\nlove and friendship cannot subsist in the same bosom; even when\ninspired by different objects they weaken or destroy each other,\nand for the same object can only be felt in succession.  The vain\nfears and fond jealousies, the winds which fan the flame of love,\nwhen judiciously or artfully tempered, are both incompatible with\nthe tender confidence and sincere respect of friendship.\n\nLove, such as the glowing pen of genius has traced, exists not on\nearth, or only resides in those exalted, fervid imaginations that\nhave sketched such dangerous pictures.  Dangerous, because they not\nonly afford a plausible excuse to the voluptuary, who disguises\nsheer sensuality under a sentimental veil; but as they spread\naffectation, and take from the dignity of virtue.  Virtue, as the\nvery word imports, should have an appearance of seriousness, if not\nausterity; and to endeavour to trick her out in the garb of\npleasure, because the epithet has been used as another name for\nbeauty, is to exalt her on a quicksand; a most insidious attempt to\nhasten her fall by apparent respect.  Virtue, and pleasure are not,\nin fact, so nearly allied in this life as some eloquent writers\nhave laboured to prove.  Pleasure prepares the fading wreath, and\nmixes the intoxicating cup; but the fruit which virtue gives, is\nthe recompence of toil:  and, gradually seen as it ripens, only\naffords calm satisfaction; nay, appearing to be the result of the\nnatural tendency of things, it is scarcely observed.  Bread, the\ncommon food of life, seldom thought of as a blessing, supports the\nconstitution, and preserves health; still feasts delight the heart\nof man, though disease and even death lurk in the cup or dainty\nthat elevates the spirits or tickles the palate.  The lively heated\nimagination in the same style, draws the picture of love, as it\ndraws every other picture, with those glowing colours, which the\ndaring hand will steal from the rainbow that is directed by a mind,\ncondemned, in a world like this, to prove its noble origin, by\npanting after unattainable perfection; ever pursuing what it\nacknowledges to be a fleeting dream.  An imagination of this\nvigorous cast can give existence to insubstantial forms, and\nstability to the shadowy reveries which the mind naturally falls\ninto when realities are found vapid.  It can then depict love with\ncelestial charms, and dote on the grand ideal object; it can\nimagine a degree of mutual affection that shall refine the soul,\nand not expire when it has served as a \"scale to heavenly;\" and,\nlike devotion, make it absorb every meaner affection and desire.\nIn each other's arms, as in a temple, with its summit lost in the\nclouds, the world is to be shut out, and every thought and wish,\nthat do not nurture pure affection and permanent virtue.  Permanent\nvirtue! alas! Rousseau, respectable visionary! thy paradise would\nsoon be violated by the entrance of some unexpected guest.  Like\nMilton's, it would only contain angels, or men sunk below the\ndignity of rational creatures.  Happiness is not material, it\ncannot be seen or felt!  Yet the eager pursuit of the good which\nevery one shapes to his own fancy, proclaims man the lord of this\nlower world, and to be an intelligential creature, who is not to\nreceive, but acquire happiness.  They, therefore, who complain of\nthe delusions of passion, do not recollect that they are exclaiming\nagainst a strong proof of the immortality of the soul.\n\nBut, leaving superior minds to correct themselves, and pay dearly\nfor their experience, it is necessary to observe, that it is not\nagainst strong, persevering passions; but romantic, wavering\nfeelings, that I wish to guard the female heart by exercising the\nunderstanding; for these paradisiacal reveries are oftener the\neffect of idleness than of a lively fancy.\n\nWomen have seldom sufficient serious employment to silence their\nfeelings; a round of little cares, or vain pursuits, frittering\naway all strength of mind and organs, they become naturally only\nobjects of sense.  In short, the whole tenor of female education\n(the education of society) tends to render the best disposed,\nromantic and inconstant; and the remainder vain and mean.  In the\npresent state of society, this evil can scarcely be remedied, I am\nafraid, in the slightest degree; should a more laudable ambition\never gain ground, they may be brought nearer to nature and reason,\nand become more virtuous and useful as they grow more respectable.\n\nBut I will venture to assert, that their reason will never acquire\nsufficient strength to enable it to regulate their conduct, whilst\nthe making an appearance in the world is the first wish of the\nmajority of mankind.  To this weak wish the natural affections and\nthe most useful virtues are sacrificed.  Girls marry merely to\nBETTER THEMSELVES, to borrow a significant vulgar phrase, and have\nsuch perfect power over their hearts as not to permit themselves to\nFALL IN LOVE till a man with a superior fortune offers.  On this\nsubject I mean to enlarge in a future chapter; it is only necessary\nto drop a hint at present, because women are so often degraded by\nsuffering the selfish prudence of age to chill the ardour of youth.\n\n>From the same source flows an opinion that young girls ought to\ndedicate great part of their time to needle work; yet, this\nemployment contracts their faculties more than any other that could\nhave been chosen for them, by confining their thoughts to their\npersons.  Men order their clothes to be made, and have done with\nthe subject; women make their own clothes, necessary or ornamental,\nand are continually talking about them; and their thoughts follow\ntheir hands.  It is not indeed the making of necessaries that\nweakens the mind; but the frippery of dress.  For when a woman in\nthe lower rank of life makes her husband's and children's clothes,\nshe does her duty, this is part of her business; but when women\nwork only to dress better than they could otherwise afford, it is\nworse than sheer loss of time.  To render the poor virtuous, they\nmust be employed, and women in the middle rank of life did they not\nape the fashions of the nobility, without catching their ease,\nmight employ them, whilst they themselves managed their families,\ninstructed their children, and exercised their own minds.\nGardening, experimental philosophy, and literature, would afford\nthem subjects to think of, and matter for conversation, that in\nsome degree would exercise their understandings.  The conversation\nof French women, who are not so rigidly nailed to their chairs, to\ntwist lappets, and knot ribbands, is frequently superficial; but, I\ncontend, that it is not half so insipid as that of those English\nwomen, whose time is spent in making caps, bonnets, and the whole\nmischief of trimmings, not to mention shopping, bargain-hunting,\netc. etc.:  and it is the decent, prudent women, who are most\ndegraded by these practices; for their motive is simply vanity.\nThe wanton, who exercises her taste to render her person alluring,\nhas something more in view.\n\nThese observations all branch out of a general one, which I have\nbefore made, and which cannot be too often insisted upon, for,\nspeaking of men, women, or professions, it will be found, that the\nemployment of the thoughts shapes the character both generally and\nindividually.  The thoughts of women ever hover around their\npersons, and is it surprising that their persons are reckoned most\nvaluable?  Yet some degree of liberty of mind is necessary even to\nform the person; and this may be one reason why some gentle wives\nhave so few attractions beside that of sex.  Add to this, sedentary\nemployments render the majority of women sickly, and false notions\nof female excellence make them proud of this delicacy, though it be\nanother fetter, that by calling the attention continually to the\nbody, cramps the activity of the mind.\n\nWomen of quality seldom do any of the manual part of their dress,\nconsequently only their taste is exercised, and they acquire, by\nthinking less of the finery, when the business of their toilet is\nover, that ease, which seldom appears in the deportment of women,\nwho dress merely for the sake of dressing.  In fact, the\nobservation with respect to the middle rank, the one in which\ntalents thrive best, extends not to women; for those of the\nsuperior class, by catching, at least a smattering of literature,\nand conversing more with men, on general topics, acquire more\nknowledge than the women who ape their fashions and faults without\nsharing their advantages.  With respect to virtue, to use the word\nin a comprehensive sense, I have seen most in low life.  Many poor\nwomen maintain their children by the sweat of their brow, and keep\ntogether families that the vices of the fathers would have\nscattered abroad; but gentlewomen are too indolent to be actively\nvirtuous, and are softened rather than refined by civilization.\nIndeed the good sense which I have met with among the poor women\nwho have had few advantages of education, and yet have acted\nheroically, strongly confirmed me in the opinion, that trifling\nemployments have rendered women a trifler.  Men, taking her ('I\ntake her body,' says Ranger.) body, the mind is left to rust; so\nthat while physical love enervates man, as being his favourite\nrecreation, he will endeavour to enslave woman:  and who can tell\nhow many generations may be necessary to give vigour to the virtue\nand talents of the freed posterity of abject slaves?  ('Supposing\nthat women are voluntary slaves--slavery of any kind is\nunfavourable to human happiness and improvement.'--'Knox's\nEssays'.)\n\nIn tracing the causes that in my opinion, have degraded woman, I\nhave confined my observations to such as universally act upon the\nmorals and manners of the whole sex, and to me it appears clear,\nthat they all spring from want of understanding.  Whether this\narises from a physical or accidental weakness of faculties, time\nalone can determine; for I shall not lay any great stress upon the\nexample of a few women (Sappho, Eloisa, Mrs. Macaulay, the Empress\nof Russia, Madame d'Eon, etc.  These, and many more, may be\nreckoned exceptions; and, are not all heroes, as well as heroines,\nexceptions to general rules?  I wish to see women neither heroines\nnor brutes; but reasonable creatures.) who, from having received a\nmasculine education, have acquired courage and resolution; I only\ncontend that the men who have been placed in similar situations\nhave acquired a similar character, I speak of bodies of men, and\nthat men of genius and talents have started out of a class, in\nwhich women have never yet been placed.\n\n\nCHAPTER 5.\n\nANIMADVERSIONS ON SOME OF THE WRITERS WHO HAVE RENDERED WOMEN\nOBJECTS OF PITY, BORDERING ON CONTEMPT.\n\nThe opinions speciously supported, in some modern publications on\nthe female character, and education, which have given the tone to\nmost of the observations made, in a more cursory manner, on the\nsex, remain now to be examined.\n\nSECTION 5.1.\n\nI shall begin with Rousseau, and give a sketch of the character of\nwomen in his own words, interspersing comments and reflections.  My\ncomments, it is true, will all spring from a few simple principles,\nand might have been deduced from what I have already said; but the\nartificial structure has been raised with so much ingenuity, that\nit seems necessary to attack it in a more circumstantial manner,\nand make the application myself.\n\nSophia, says Rousseau, should be as perfect a woman as Emilius is a\nman, and to render her so, it is necessary to examine the character\nwhich nature has given to the sex.\n\nHe then proceeds to prove, that women ought to be weak and passive,\nbecause she has less bodily strength than man; and from hence\ninfers, that she was formed to please and to be subject to him; and\nthat it is her duty to render herself AGREEABLE to her master--this\nbeing the grand end of her existence.\n\nSupposing women to have been formed only to please, and be subject\nto man, the conclusion is just, she ought to sacrifice every other\nconsideration to render herself agreeable to him:  and let this\nbrutal desire of self-preservation be the grand spring of all her\nactions, when it is proved to be the iron bed of fate, to fit\nwhich, her character should be stretched or contracted, regardless\nof all moral or physical distinctions.  But if, as I think may be\ndemonstrated, the purposes of even this life, viewing the whole,\nare subverted by practical rules built upon this ignoble base, I\nmay be allowed to doubt whether woman was created for man:  and\nthough the cry of irreligion, or even atheism be raised against me,\nI will simply declare, that were an angel from heaven to tell me\nthat Moses's beautiful, poetical cosmogony, and the account of the\nfall of man, were literally true, I could not believe what my\nreason told me was derogatory to the character of the Supreme\nBeing:  and, having no fear of the devil before mine eyes, I\nventure to call this a suggestion of reason, instead of resting my\nweakness on the broad shoulders of the first seducer of my frail\nsex.\n\n\"It being once demonstrated,\" continues Rousseau, \"that man and\nwoman are not, nor ought to be, constituted alike in temperament\nand character, it follows of course, that they should not be\neducated in the same manner.  In pursuing the directions of nature,\nthey ought indeed to act in concert, but they should not be engaged\nin the same employments:  the end of their pursuits should be the\nsame, but the means they should take to accomplish them, and, of\nconsequence, their tastes and inclinations should be different.\"\n(Rousseau's 'Emilius', Volume 3 page 176.)\n\n\"Girls are from their earliest infancy fond of dress.  Not content\nwith being pretty, they are desirous of being thought so; we see,\nby all their little airs, that this thought engages their\nattention; and they are hardly capable of understanding what is\nsaid to them, before they are to be governed by talking to them of\nwhat people will think of their behaviour.  The same motive,\nhowever, indiscreetly made use of with boys, has not the same\neffect:  provided they are let to pursue their amusements at\npleasure, they care very little what people think of them.  Time\nand pains are necessary to subject boys to this motive.\n\n\"Whencesoever girls derive this first lesson it is a very good one.\nAs the body is born, in a manner before the soul, our first concern\nshould be to cultivate the former; this order is common to both\nsexes, but the object of that cultivation is different.  In the one\nsex it is the developement of corporeal powers; in the other, that\nof personal charms:  not that either the quality of strength or\nbeauty ought to be confined exclusively to one sex; but only that\nthe order of the cultivation of both is in that respect reversed.\nWomen certainly require as much strength as to enable them to move\nand act gracefully, and men as much address as to qualify them to\nact with ease.\"\n\n*    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *\n\n\"Children of both sexes have a great many amusements in common; and\nso they ought; have they not also many such when they are grown up?\nEach sex has also its peculiar taste to distinguish in this\nparticular.  Boys love sports of noise and activity; to beat the\ndrum, to whip the top, and to drag about their little carts:\ngirls, on the other hand, are fonder of things of show and\nornament; such as mirrors, trinkets, and dolls; the doll is the\npeculiar amusement of the females; from whence we see their taste\nplainly adapted to their destination.  The physical part of the art\nof pleasing lies in dress; and this is all which children are\ncapacitated to cultivate of that art.\"\n\n*    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *    *\n\n\"Here then we see a primary propensity firmly established, which\nyou need only to pursue and regulate.  The little creature will\ndoubtless be very desirous to know how to dress up her doll, to\nmake its sleeve knots, its flounces, its head dress, etc., she is\nobliged to have so much recourse to the people about her, for their\nassistance in these articles, that it would be much more agreeable\nto her to owe them all to her own industry.  Hence we have a good\nreason for the first lessons which are usually taught these young\nfemales:  in which we do not appear to be setting them a task, but\nobliging them, by instructing them in what is immediately useful to\nthemselves.  And, in fact, almost all of them learn with reluctance\nto read and write; but very readily apply themselves to the use of\ntheir needles.  They imagine themselves already grown up, and think\nwith pleasure that such qualifications will enable them to decorate\nthemselves.\"\n\nThis is certainly only an education of the body; but Rousseau is\nnot the only man who has indirectly said that merely the person of\na young woman, without any mind, unless animal spirits come under\nthat description, is very pleasing.  To render it weak, and what\nsome may call beautiful, the understanding is neglected, and girls\nforced to sit still, play with dolls, and listen to foolish\nconversations; the effect of habit is insisted upon as an undoubted\nindication of nature.  I know it was Rousseau's opinion that the\nfirst years of youth should be employed to form the body, though in\neducating Emilius he deviates from this plan; yet the difference\nbetween strengthening the body, on which strength of mind in a\ngreat measure depends, and only giving it an easy motion, is very\nwide.\n\nRousseau's observations, it is proper to remark, were made in a\ncountry where the art of pleasing was refined only to extract the\ngrossness of vice.  He did not go back to nature, or his ruling\nappetite disturbed the operations of reason, else he would not have\ndrawn these crude inferences.\n\nIn France, boys and girls, particularly the latter, are only\neducated to please, to manage their persons, and regulate their\nexterior behaviour; and their minds are corrupted at a very early\nage, by the worldly and pious cautions they receive, to guard them\nagainst immodesty.  I speak of past times.  The very confessions\nwhich mere children are obliged to make, and the questions asked by\nthe holy men I assert these facts on good authority, were\nsufficient to impress a sexual character; and the education of\nsociety was a school of coquetry and art.  At the age of ten or\neleven; nay, often much sooner, girls began to coquet, and talked,\nunreproved, of establishing themselves in the world by marriage.\n\nIn short, they were made women, almost from their very birth, and\ncompliments were listened to instead of instruction.  These,\nweakening the mind, Nature was supposed to have acted like a\nstep-mother, when she formed this after-thought of creation.\n\nNot allowing them understanding, however, it was but consistent to\nsubject them to authority, independent of reason; and to prepare\nthem for this subjection, he gives the following advice:\n\n\"Girls ought to be active and diligent; nor is that all; they\nshould also be early subjected to restraint.  This misfortune, if\nit really be one, is inseparable from their sex; nor do they ever\nthrow it off but to suffer more cruel evils.  They must be subject,\nall their lives, to the most constant and severe restraint, which\nis that of decorum:  it is, therefore, necessary to accustom them\nearly to such confinement, that it may not afterward cost them too\ndear; and to the suppression of their caprices, that they may the\nmore readily submit to the will of others.  If, indeed, they are\nfond of being always at work, they should be sometimes compelled to\nlay it aside.  Dissipation, levity, and inconstancy, are faults\nthat readily spring up from their first propensities, when\ncorrupted or perverted by too much indulgence.  To prevent this\nabuse, we should learn them, above all things, to lay a due\nrestraint on themselves.  The life of a modest woman is reduced, by\nour absurd institutions, to a perpetual conflict with herself:  not\nbut it is just that this sex should partake of the sufferings which\narise from those evils it hath caused us.\"\n\nAnd why is the life of a modest woman a perpetual conflict?  I\nshould answer, that this very system of education makes it so.\nModesty, temperance, and self-denial, are the sober offspring of\nreason; but when sensibility is nurtured at the expense of the\nunderstanding, such weak beings must be restrained by arbitrary\nmeans, and be subjected to continual conflicts; but give their\nactivity of mind a wider range, and nobler passions and motives\nwill govern their appetites and sentiments.\n\n\"The common attachment and regard of a mother, nay, mere habit,\nwill make her beloved by her children, if she does nothing to incur\ntheir hate.  Even the restraint she lays them under, if well\ndirected, will increase their affection, instead of lessening it;\nbecause a state of dependence being natural to the sex, they\nperceive themselves formed for obedience.\"\n\nThis is begging the question; for servitude not only debases the\nindividual, but its effects seem to be transmitted to posterity.\nConsidering the length of time that women have been dependent, is\nit surprising that some of them hug their chains, and fawn like the\nspaniel? \"These dogs,\" observes a naturalist, \"at first kept their\nears erect; but custom has superseded nature, and a token of fear\nis become a beauty.\"\n\n\"For the same reason,\" adds Rousseau, \"women have or ought to have,\nbut little liberty; they are apt to indulge themselves excessively\nin what is allowed them.  Addicted in every thing to extremes, they\nare even more transported at their diversions than boys.\"\n\nThe answer to this is very simple.  Slaves and mobs have always\nindulged themselves in the same excesses, when once they broke\nloose from authority.  The bent bow recoils with violence, when the\nhand is suddenly relaxed that forcibly held it:  and sensibility,\nthe plaything of outward circumstances, must be subjected to\nauthority, or moderated by reason.\n\n\"There results,\" he continues, \"from this habitual restraint, a\ntractableness which the women have occasion for during their whole\nlives, as they constantly remain either under subjection to the\nmen, or to the opinions of mankind; and are never permitted to set\nthemselves above those opinions.  The first and most important\nqualification in a woman is good-nature or sweetness of temper;\nformed to obey a being so imperfect as man, often full of vices,\nand always full of faults, she ought to learn betimes even to\nsuffer injustice, and to bear the insults of a husband without\ncomplaint; it is not for his sake, but her own, that she should be\nof a mild disposition.  The perverseness and ill-nature of the\nwomen only serve to aggravate their own misfortunes, and the\nmisconduct of their husbands; they might plainly perceive that such\nare not the arms by which they gain the superiority.\"\n\nFormed to live with such an imperfect being as man, they ought to\nlearn from the exercise of their faculties the necessity of\nforbearance; but all the sacred rights of humanity are violated by\ninsisting on blind obedience; or, the most sacred rights belong\nONLY to man.\n\nThe being who patiently endures injustice, and silently bears\ninsults, will soon become unjust, or unable to discern right from\nwrong.  Besides, I deny the fact, this is not the true way to form\nor meliorate the temper; for, as a sex, men have better tempers\nthan women, because they are occupied by pursuits that interest the\nhead as well as the heart; and the steadiness of the head gives a\nhealthy temperature to the heart.  People of sensibility have\nseldom good tempers.  The formation of the temper is the cool work\nof reason, when, as life advances, she mixes with happy art,\njarring elements.  I never knew a weak or ignorant person who had a\ngood temper, though that constitutional good humour, and that\ndocility, which fear stamps on the behaviour, often obtains the\nname.  I say behaviour, for genuine meekness never reached the\nheart or mind, unless as the effect of reflection; and, that simple\nrestraint produces a number of peccant humours in domestic life,\nmany sensible men will allow, who find some of these gentle\nirritable creatures, very troublesome companions.\n\n\"Each sex,\" he further argues, \"should preserve its peculiar tone\nand manner:  a meek husband may make a wife impertinent; but\nmildness of disposition on the woman's side will always bring a man\nback to reason, at least if he be not absolutely a brute, and will\nsooner or later triumph over him.\"  True, the mildness of reason;\nbut abject fear always inspires contempt; and tears are only\neloquent when they flow down fair cheeks.\n\nOf what materials can that heart be composed, which can melt when\ninsulted, and instead of revolting at injustice, kiss the rod?  Is\nit unfair to infer, that her virtue is built on narrow views and\nselfishness, who can caress a man, with true feminine softness, the\nvery moment when he treats her tyrannically?  Nature never dictated\nsuch insincerity; and though prudence of this sort be termed a\nvirtue, morality becomes vague when any part is supposed to rest on\nfalsehood.  These are mere expedients, and expedients are only\nuseful for the moment.\n\nLet the husband beware of trusting too implicitly to this servile\nobedience; for if his wife can with winning sweetness caress him\nwhen angry, and when she ought to be angry, unless contempt had\nstifled a natural effervescence, she may do the same after parting\nwith a lover.  These are all preparations for adultery; or, should\nthe fear of the world, or of hell, restrain her desire of pleasing\nother men, when she can no longer please her husband, what\nsubstitute can be found by a being who was only formed by nature\nand art to please man?  what can make her amends for this\nprivation, or where is she to seek for a fresh employment?  where\nfind sufficient strength of mind to determine to begin the search,\nwhen her habits are fixed, and vanity has long ruled her chaotic\nmind?\n\nBut this partial moralist recommends cunning systematically and\nplausibly.\n\n\"Daughters should be always submissive; their mothers, however,\nshould not be inexorable.  To make a young person tractable, she\nought not to be made unhappy; to make her modest she ought not to\nbe rendered stupid.  On the contrary, I should not be displeased at\nher being permitted to use some art, not to elude punishment in\ncase of disobedience, but to exempt herself from the necessity of\nobeying.  It is not necessary to make her dependence burdensome,\nbut only to let her feel it.  Subtilty is a talent natural to the\nsex; and as I am persuaded, all our natural inclinations are right\nand good in themselves, I am of opinion this should be cultivated\nas well as the others:  it is requisite for us only to prevent its\nabuse.\"\n\n\"Whatever is, is right,\" he then proceeds triumphantly to infer.\nGranted; yet, perhaps, no aphorism ever contained a more\nparadoxical assertion.  It is a solemn truth with respect to God.\nHe, reverentially I speak, sees the whole at once, and saw its just\nproportions in the womb of time; but man, who can only inspect\ndisjointed parts, finds many things wrong; and it is a part of the\nsystem, and therefore right, that he should endeavour to alter what\nappears to him to be so, even while he bows to the wisdom of his\nCreator, and respects the darkness he labours to disperse.\n\nThe inference that follows is just, supposing the principle to be\nsound: \"The superiority of address, peculiar to the female sex, is\na very equitable indemnification for their inferiority in point of\nstrength: without this, woman would not be the companion of man;\nbut his slave:  it is by her superiour art and ingenuity that she\npreserves her equality, and governs him while she affects to obey.\nWoman has every thing against her, as well our faults as her own\ntimidity and weakness: she has nothing in her favour, but her\nsubtilty and her beauty.  Is it not very reasonable, therefore, she\nshould cultivate both?\"  Greatness of mind can never dwell with\ncunning or address; for I shall not boggle about words, when their\ndirect signification is insincerity and falsehood; but content\nmyself with observing, that if any class of mankind be so created\nthat it must necessarily be educated by rules, not strictly\ndeducible from truth, virtue is an affair of convention.  How could\nRousseau dare to assert, after giving this advice, that in the\ngrand end of existence, the object of both sexes should be the\nsame, when he well knew, that the mind formed by its pursuits, is\nexpanded by great views swallowing up little ones, or that it\nbecomes itself little?\n\nMen have superiour strength of body; but were it not for mistaken\nnotions of beauty, women would acquire sufficient to enable them to\nearn their own subsistence, the true definition of independence;\nand to bear those bodily inconveniences and exertions that are\nrequisite to strengthen the mind.\n\nLet us then, by being allowed to take the same exercise as boys,\nnot only during infancy, but youth, arrive at perfection of body,\nthat we may know how far the natural superiority of man extends.\nFor what reason or virtue can be expected from a creature when the\nseed-time of life is neglected? None--did not the winds of heaven\ncasually scatter many useful seeds in the fallow ground.\n\n\"Beauty cannot be acquired by dress, and coquetry is an art not so\nearly and speedily attained.  While girls are yet young, however,\nthey are in a capacity to study agreeable gesture, a pleasing\nmodulation of voice, an easy carriage and behaviour; as well as to\ntake the advantage of gracefully adapting their looks and attitudes\nto time, place, and occasion.  Their application, therefore, should\nnot be solely confined to the arts of industry and the needle, when\nthey come to display other talents, whose utility is already\napparent.\" \"For my part I would have a young Englishwoman cultivate\nher agreeable talents, in order to please her future husband, with\nas much care and assiduity as a young Circassian cultivates her's,\nto fit her for the Haram of an Eastern bashaw.\"\n\nTo render women completely insignificant, he adds,--\"The tongues of\nwomen are very voluble; they speak earlier, more readily, and more\nagreeably than the men; they are accused also of speaking much\nmore:  but so it ought to be, and I should be very ready to convert\nthis reproach into a compliment; their lips and eyes have the same\nactivity, and for the same reason.  A man speaks of what he knows,\na woman of what pleases her; the one requires knowledge, the other\ntaste; the principal object of a man's discourse should be what is\nuseful, that of a woman's what is agreeable.  There ought to be\nnothing in common between their different conversation but truth.\"\n\n\"We ought not, therefore, to restrain the prattle of girls, in the\nsame manner as we should that of boys, with that severe question,\n'To what purpose are you talking?' but by another, which is no less\ndifficult to answer, 'How will your discourse be received?'  In\ninfancy, while they are as yet incapable to discern good from evil,\nthey ought to observe it as a law, never to say any thing\ndisagreeable to those whom they are speaking to:  what will render\nthe practice of this rule also the more difficult, is, that it must\never be subordinate to the former, of never speaking falsely or\ntelling an untruth.\"  To govern the tongue in this manner must\nrequire great address indeed; and it is too much practised both by\nmen and women.  Out of the abundance of the heart how few speak!\nSo few, that I, who love simplicity, would gladly give up\npoliteness for a quarter of the virtue that has been sacrificed to\nan equivocal quality, which, at best, should only be the polish of\nvirtue.\n\nBut to complete the sketch.  \"It is easy to be conceived, that if\nmale children be not in a capacity to form any true notions of\nreligion, those ideas must be greatly above the conception of the\nfemales:  it is for this very reason, I would begin to speak to\nthem the earlier on this subject; for if we were to wait till they\nwere in a capacity to discuss methodically such profound questions,\nwe should run a risk of never speaking to them on this subject as\nlong as they lived.  Reason in women is a practical reason,\ncapacitating them artfully to discover the means of attaining a\nknown end, but which would never enable them to discover that end\nitself.  The social relations of the sexes are indeed truly\nadmirable:  from their union there results a moral person, of which\nwoman may be termed the eyes, and man the hand, with this\ndependence on each other, that it is from the man that the woman is\nto learn what she is to see, and it is of the woman that man is to\nlearn what he ought to do.  If woman could recur to the first\nprinciples of things as well as man, and man was capacitated to\nenter into their minutae as well as woman, always independent of\neach other, they would live in perpetual discord, and their union\ncould not subsist.  But in the present harmony which naturally\nsubsists between them, their different faculties tend to one common\nend; it is difficult to say which of them conduces the most to it:\neach follows the impulse of the other; each is obedient, and both\nare masters.\"\n\n\"As the conduct of a woman is subservient to the public opinion,\nher faith in matters of religion, should for that very reason, be\nsubject to authority.  'Every daughter ought to be of the same\nreligion as her mother, and every wife to be of the same religion\nas her husband:  for, though such religion should be false, that\ndocility which induces the mother and daughter to submit to the\norder of nature, takes away, in the sight of God, the criminality\nof their error'.*  As they are not in a capacity to judge for\nthemselves, they ought to abide by the decision of their fathers\nand husbands as confidently as by that of the church.\"\n\n(*Footnote.  What is to be the consequence, if the mother's and\nhusband's opinion should chance not to agree?  An ignorant person\ncannot be reasoned out of an error, and when persuaded to give up\none prejudice for another the mind is unsettled.  Indeed, the\nhusband may not have any religion to teach her though in such a\nsituation she will be in great want of a support to her virtue,\nindependent of worldly considerations.)\n\n\"As authority ought to regulate the religion of the women, it is\nnot so needful to explain to them the reasons for their belief, as\nto lay down precisely the tenets they are to believe:  for the\ncreed, which presents only obscure ideas to the mind, is the source\nof fanaticism; and that which presents absurdities, leads to\ninfidelity.\"\n\nAbsolute, uncontroverted authority, it seems, must subsist\nsomewhere:  but is not this a direct and exclusive appropriation of\nreason?  The RIGHTS of humanity have been thus confined to the male\nline from Adam downwards.  Rousseau would carry his male\naristocracy still further, for he insinuates, that he should not\nblame those, who contend for leaving woman in a state of the most\nprofound ignorance, if it were not necessary, in order to preserve\nher chastity, and justify the man's choice in the eyes of the\nworld, to give her a little knowledge of men, and the customs\nproduced by human passions; else she might propagate at home\nwithout being rendered less voluptuous and innocent by the exercise\nof her understanding:  excepting, indeed, during the first year of\nmarriage, when she might employ it to dress, like Sophia.  \"Her\ndress is extremely modest in appearance, and yet very coquettish in\nfact:  she does not make a display of her charms, she conceals\nthem; but, in concealing them, she knows how to affect your\nimagination.  Every one who sees her, will say, There is a modest\nand discreet girl; but while you are near her, your eyes and\naffections wander all over her person, so that you cannot withdraw\nthem; and you would conclude that every part of her dress, simple\nas it seems, was only put in its proper order to be taken to pieces\nby the imagination.\"  Is this modesty?  Is this a preparation for\nimmortality?  Again.  What opinion are we to form of a system of\neducation, when the author says of his heroine, \"that with her,\ndoing things well is but a SECONDARY concern; her principal concern\nis to do them NEATLY.\"\n\nSecondary, in fact, are all her virtues and qualities, for,\nrespecting religion, he makes her parents thus address her,\naccustomed to submission--\"Your husband will instruct you in good\ntime.\"\n\nAfter thus cramping a woman's mind, if, in order to keep it fair,\nhe has not made it quite a blank, he advises her to reflect, that a\nreflecting man may not yawn in her company, when he is tired of\ncaressing her.  What has she to reflect about, who must obey? and\nwould it not be a refinement on cruelty only to open her mind to\nmake the darkness and misery of her fate VISIBLE?  Yet these are\nhis sensible remarks; how consistent with what I have already been\nobliged to quote, to give a fair view of the subject, the reader\nmay determine.\n\n\"They who pass their whole lives in working for their daily bread,\nhave no ideas beyond their business or their interest, and all\ntheir understanding seems to lie in their fingers' ends.  This\nignorance is neither prejudicial to their integrity nor their\nmorals; it is often of service to them.  Sometimes, by means of\nreflection, we are led to compound with our duty, and we conclude,\nby substituting a jargon of words, in the room of things.  Our own\nconscience is the most enlightened philosopher.  There is no need\nof being acquainted with Tully's offices, to make a man of probity:\nand perhaps the most virtuous woman in the world is the least\nacquainted with the definition of virtue.  But it is no less true,\nthan an improved understanding only can render society agreeable;\nand it is a melancholy thing for a father of a family, who is fond\nof home, to be obliged to be always wrapped up in himself, and to\nhave nobody about him to whom he can impart his sentiments.\n\n\"Besides, how should a woman void of reflection be capable of\neducating her children?  How should she discern what is proper for\nthem?  How should she incline them to those virtues she is\nunacquainted with, or to that merit of which she has no idea?  She\ncan only sooth or chide them; render them insolent or timid; she\nwill make them formal coxcombs, or ignorant blockheads; but will\nnever make them sensible or amiable.\"  How indeed should she, when\nher husband is not always at hand to lend her his reason --when\nthey both together make but one moral being?  A blind will, \"eyes\nwithout hands,\" would go a very little way; and perchance his\nabstract reason, that should concentrate the scattered beams of her\npractical reason, may be employed in judging of the flavour of\nwine, discanting on the sauces most proper for turtle; or, more\nprofoundly intent at a card-table, he may be generalizing his ideas\nas he bets away his fortune, leaving all the minutiae of education\nto his helpmate or chance.\n\nBut, granting that woman ought to be beautiful, innocent, and\nsilly, to render her a more alluring and indulgent companion--what\nis her understanding sacrificed for?  And why is all this\npreparation necessary only, according to Rousseau's own account, to\nmake her the mistress of her husband, a very short time?  For no\nman ever insisted more on the transient nature of love.  Thus\nspeaks the philosopher.  \"Sensual pleasures are transient.  The\nhabitual state of the affections always loses by their\ngratification.  The imagination, which decks the object of our\ndesires, is lost in fruition.  Excepting the Supreme Being, who is\nself-existent, there is nothing beautiful but what is ideal.\"\n\nBut he returns to his unintelligible paradoxes again, when he thus\naddresses Sophia.  \"Emilius, in becoming your husband, is become\nyour master, and claims your obedience.  Such is the order of\nnature.  When a man is married, however, to such a wife as Sophia,\nit is proper he should be directed by her:  this is also agreeable\nto the order of nature:  it is, therefore, to give you as much\nauthority over his heart as his sex gives him over your person,\nthat I have made you the arbiter of his pleasures.  It may cost\nyou, perhaps, some disagreeable self-denial; but you will be\ncertain of maintaining your empire over him, if you can preserve it\nover yourself;  what I have already observed, also shows me, that\nthis difficult attempt does not surpass your courage.\n\n\"Would you have your husband constantly at your feet? keep him at\nsome distance from your person.  You will long maintain the\nauthority of love, if you know but how to render your favours rare\nand valuable.  It is thus you may employ even the arts of coquetry\nin the service of virtue, and those of love in that of reason.\"\n\nI shall close my extracts with a just description of a comfortable\ncouple.  \"And yet you must not imagine, that even such management\nwill always suffice.  Whatever precaution be taken, enjoyment will,\nby degrees, take off the edge of passion.  But when love hath\nlasted as long as possible, a pleasing habitude supplies its place,\nand the attachment of a mutual confidence succeeds to the\ntransports of passion.  Children often form a more agreeable and\npermanent connexion between married people than even love itself.\nWhen you cease to be the mistress of Emilius, you will continue to\nbe his wife and friend; you will be the mother of his children.\"\n(Rousseau's Emilius.)\n\nChildren, he truly observes, form a much more permanent connexion\nbetween married people than love.  Beauty he declares will not be\nvalued, or even seen, after a couple have lived six months\ntogether; artificial graces and coquetry will likewise pall on the\nsenses:  why then does he say, that a girl should be educated for\nher husband with the same care as for an eastern haram?\n\nI now appeal from the reveries of fancy and refined licentiousness\nto the good sense of mankind, whether, if the object of education\nbe to prepare women to become chaste wives and sensible mothers,\nthe method so plausibly recommended in the foregoing sketch, be the\none best calculated to produce those ends?  Will it be allowed that\nthe surest way to make a wife chaste, is to teach her to practise\nthe wanton arts of a mistress, termed virtuous coquetry by the\nsensualist who can no longer relish the artless charms of\nsincerity, or taste the pleasure arising from a tender intimacy,\nwhen confidence is unchecked by suspicion, and rendered interesting\nby sense?\n\nThe man who can be contented to live with a pretty useful companion\nwithout a mind, has lost in voluptuous gratifications a taste for\nmore refined enjoyments; he has never felt the calm satisfaction\nthat refreshes the parched heart, like the silent dew of heaven--of\nbeing beloved by one who could understand him.  In the society of\nhis wife he is still alone, unless when the man is sunk in the\nbrute.  \"The charm of life,\" says a grave philosophical reasoner,\nis \"sympathy; nothing pleases us more than to observe in other men\na fellow-feeling with all the emotions of our own breast.\"\n\nBut, according to the tenor of reasoning by which women are kept\nfrom the tree of knowledge, the important years of youth, the\nusefulness of age, and the rational hopes of futurity, are all to\nbe sacrificed, to render woman an object of desire for a short\ntime.  Besides, how could Rousseau expect them to be virtuous and\nconstant when reason is neither allowed to be the foundation of\ntheir virtue, nor truth the object of their inquiries?\n\nBut all Rousseau's errors in reasoning arose from sensibility, and\nsensibility to their charms women are very ready to forgive!  When\nhe should have reasoned he became impassioned, and reflection\ninflamed his imagination, instead of enlightening his\nunderstanding.  Even his virtues also led him farther astray; for,\nborn with a warm constitution and lively fancy, nature carried him\ntoward the other sex with such eager fondness, that he soon became\nlascivious.  Had he given way to these desires, the fire would have\nextinguished itself in a natural manner, but virtue, and a romantic\nkind of delicacy, made him practise self-denial; yet, when fear,\ndelicacy, or virtue restrained him, he debauched his imagination;\nand reflecting on the sensations to which fancy gave force, he\ntraced them in the most glowing colours, and sunk them deep into\nhis soul.\n\nHe then sought for solitude, not to sleep with the man of nature;\nor calmly investigate the causes of things under the shade where\nSir Isaac Newton indulged contemplation, but merely to indulge his\nfeelings.  And so warmly has he painted what he forcibly felt,\nthat, interesting the heart and inflaming the imagination of his\nreaders; in proportion to the strength of their fancy, they imagine\nthat their understanding is convinced, when they only sympathize\nwith a poetic writer, who skilfully exhibits the objects of sense,\nmost voluptuously shadowed, or gracefully veiled; and thus making\nus feel, whilst dreaming that we reason, erroneous conclusions are\nleft in the mind.\n\nWhy was Rousseau's life divided between ecstasy and misery?  Can\nany other answer be given than this, that the effervescence of his\nimagination produced both; but, had his fancy been allowed to cool,\nit is possible that he might have acquired more strength of mind.\nStill, if the purpose of life be to educate the intellectual part\nof man, all with respect to him was right; yet, had not death led\nto a nobler scene of action, it is probable that he would have\nenjoyed more equal happiness on earth, and have felt the calm\nsensations of the man of nature, instead of being prepared for\nanother stage of existence by nourishing the passions which agitate\nthe civilized man.\n\nBut peace to his manes!  I war not with his ashes, but his\nopinions.  I war only with the sensibility that led him to degrade\nwoman by making her the slave of love.\n\n....\"Curs'd vassalage,\nFirst idoliz'd till love's hot fire be o'er,\nThen slaves to those who courted us before.\"\nDryden.\n\nThe pernicious tendency of those books, in which the writers\ninsidiously degrade the sex, whilst they are prostrate before their\npersonal charms, cannot be too often or too severely exposed.\n\nLet us, my dear contemporaries, arise above such narrow prejudices!\nIf wisdom is desirable on its own account, if virtue, to deserve\nthe name, must be founded on knowledge; let us endeavour to\nstrengthen our minds by reflection, till our heads become a balance\nfor our hearts; let us not confine all our thoughts to the petty\noccurrences of the day, nor our knowledge to an acquaintance with\nour lovers' or husbands' hearts; but let the practice of every duty\nbe subordinate to the grand one of improving our minds, and\npreparing our affections for a more exalted state!\n\nBeware then, my friends, of suffering the heart to be moved by\nevery trivial incident:  the reed is shaken by a breeze, and\nannually dies, but the oak stands firm, and for ages braves the\nstorm.\n\nWere we, indeed, only created to flutter our hour out and die--why\nlet us then indulge sensibility, and laugh at the severity of\nreason.  Yet, alas! even then we should want strength of body and\nmind, and life would be lost in feverish pleasures or wearisome\nlanguor.\n\nBut the system of education, which I earnestly wish to see\nexploded, seems to presuppose, what ought never to be taken for\ngranted, that virtue shields us from the casualties of life; and\nthat fortune, slipping off her bandage, will smile on a\nwell-educated female, and bring in her hand an Emilius or a\nTelemachus.  Whilst, on the contrary, the reward which virtue\npromises to her votaries is confined, it is clear, to their own\nbosoms; and often must they contend with the most vexatious worldly\ncares, and bear with the vices and humours of relations for whom\nthey can never feel a friendship.\n\nThere have been many women in the world who, instead of being\nsupported by the reason and virtue of their fathers and brothers,\nhave strengthened their own minds by struggling with their vices\nand follies; yet have never met with a hero, in the shape of a\nhusband; who, paying the debt that mankind owed them, might chance\nto bring back their reason to its natural dependent state, and\nrestore the usurped prerogative, of rising above opinion, to man.\n\nSECTION 5.2.\n\nDr. Fordyce's sermons have long made a part of a young woman's\nlibrary; nay, girls at school are allowed to read them; but I\nshould instantly dismiss them from my pupil's, if I wished to\nstrengthen her understanding, by leading her to form sound\nprinciples on a broad basis; or, were I only anxious to cultivate\nher taste; though they must be allowed to contain many sensible\nobservations.\n\nDr. Fordyce may have had a very laudable end in view; but these\ndiscourses are written in such an affected style, that were it only\non that account, and had I nothing to object against his\nMELLIFLUOUS precepts, I should not allow girls to peruse them,\nunless I designed to hunt every spark of nature out of their\ncomposition, melting every human quality into female weakness and\nartificial grace.  I say artificial, for true grace arises from\nsome kind of independence of mind.\n\nChildren, careless of pleasing, and only anxious to amuse\nthemselves, are often very graceful; and the nobility who have\nmostly lived with inferiors, and always had the command of money,\nacquire a graceful ease of deportment, which should rather be\ntermed habitual grace of body, than that superiour gracefulness\nwhich is truly the expression of the mind.  This mental grace, not\nnoticed by vulgar eyes, often flashes across a rough countenance,\nand irradiating every feature, shows simplicity and independence of\nmind.  It is then we read characters of immortality in the eye, and\nsee the soul in every gesture, though when at rest, neither the\nface nor limbs may have much beauty to recommend them; or the\nbehaviour, any thing peculiar to attract universal attention.  The\nmass of mankind, however, look for more TANGIBLE beauty; yet\nsimplicity is, in general, admired, when people do not consider\nwhat they admire; and can there be simplicity without sincerity?\nbut, to have done with remarks that are in some measure desultory,\nthough naturally excited by the subject.\n\nIn declamatory periods Dr. Fordyce spins out Rousseau's eloquence;\nand in most sentimental rant, details his opinions respecting the\nfemale character, and the behaviour which woman ought to assume to\nrender her lovely.\n\nHe shall speak for himself, for thus he makes nature address man.\n\"Behold these smiling innocents, whom I have graced with my fairest\ngifts, and committed to your protection; behold them with love and\nrespect; treat them with tenderness and honour.  They are timid and\nwant to be defended.  They are frail; O do not take advantage of\ntheir weakness!  Let their fears and blushes endear them.  Let\ntheir confidence in you never be abused.  But is it possible, that\nany of you can be such barbarians, so supremely wicked, as to abuse\nit?  Can you find in your hearts* to despoil the gentle, trusting\ncreatures of their treasure, or do any thing to strip them of their\nnative robe of virtue?  Curst be the impious hand that would dare\nto violate the unblemished form of Chastity!  Thou wretch! thou\nruffian! forbear; nor venture to provoke heaven's fiercest\nvengeance.\"  I know not any comment that can be made seriously on\nthis curious passage, and I could produce many similar ones; and\nsome, so very sentimental, that I have heard rational men use the\nword indecent, when they mentioned them with disgust.\n\n(*Footnote.  Can you?--Can you? would be the most emphatical\ncomment, were it drawled out in a whining voice.)\n\nThroughout there is a display of cold, artificial feelings, and\nthat parade of sensibility which boys and girls should be taught to\ndespise as the sure mark of a little vain mind.  Florid appeals are\nmade to heaven, and to the BEAUTEOUS INNOCENTS, the fairest images\nof heaven here below, whilst sober sense is left far behind.  This\nis not the language of the heart, nor will it ever reach it, though\nthe ear may be tickled.\n\nI shall be told, perhaps, that the public have been pleased with\nthese volumes.  True--and Hervey's Meditations are still read,\nthough he equally sinned against sense and taste.\n\nI particularly object to the lover-like phrases of pumped up\npassion, which are every where interspersed.  If women be ever\nallowed to walk without leading-strings, why must they be cajoled\ninto virtue by artful flattery and sexual compliments?  Speak to\nthem the language of truth and soberness, and away with the lullaby\nstrains of condescending endearment!  Let them be taught to respect\nthemselves as rational creatures, and not led to have a passion for\ntheir own insipid persons.  It moves my gall to hear a preacher\ndescanting on dress and needle-work; and still more, to hear him\naddress the 'British fair, the fairest of the fair', as if they had\nonly feelings.\n\nEven recommending piety he uses the following argument.  \"Never,\nperhaps, does a fine woman strike more deeply, than when, composed\ninto pious recollection, and possessed with the noblest\nconsiderations, she assumes, without knowing it, superiour dignity\nand new graces; so that the beauties of holiness seem to radiate\nabout her, and the by-standers are almost induced to fancy her\nalready worshipping amongst her kindred angels!\"  Why are women to\nbe thus bred up with a desire of conquest? the very epithet, used\nin this sense, gives me a sickly qualm!  Does religion and virtue\noffer no stronger motives, no brighter reward?  Must they always be\ndebased by being made to consider the sex of their companions?\nMust they be taught always to be pleasing?  And when levelling\ntheir small artillery at the heart of man, is it necessary to tell\nthem that a little sense is sufficient to render their attention\nINCREDIBLY SOOTHING?  \"As a small degree of knowledge entertains in\na woman, so from a woman, though for a different reason, a small\nexpression of kindness delights, particularly if she have beauty!\"\nI should have supposed for the same reason.\n\nWhy are girls to be told that they resemble angels; but to sink\nthem below women?  Or, that a gentle, innocent female is an object\nthat comes nearer to the idea which we have formed of angels than\nany other.  Yet they are told, at the same time, that they are only\nlike angels when they are young and beautiful; consequently, it is\ntheir persons, not their virtues, that procure them this homage.\n\nIdle empty words!  what can such delusive flattery lead to, but\nvanity and folly?  The lover, it is true, has a poetic licence to\nexalt his mistress; his reason is the bubble of his passion, and he\ndoes not utter a falsehood when he borrows the language of\nadoration.  His imagination may raise the idol of his heart,\nunblamed, above humanity; and happy would it be for women, if they\nwere only flattered by the men who loved them; I mean, who love the\nindividual, not the sex; but should a grave preacher interlard his\ndiscourses with such fooleries?\n\nIn sermons or novels, however, voluptuousness is always true to its\ntext.  Men are allowed by moralists to cultivate, as nature\ndirects, different qualities, and assume the different characters,\nthat the same passions, modified almost to infinity, give to each\nindividual.  A virtuous man may have a choleric or a sanguine\nconstitution, be gay or grave, unreproved; be firm till be is\nalmost over-bearing, or, weakly submissive, have no will or opinion\nof his own; but all women are to be levelled, by meekness and\ndocility, into one character of yielding softness and gentle\ncompliance.\n\nI will use the preacher's own words.  \"Let it be observed, that in\nyour sex manly exercises are never graceful; that in them a tone\nand figure, as well as an air and deportment, of the masculine\nkind, are always forbidding; and that men of sensibility desire in\nevery woman soft features, and a flowing voice, a form not robust,\nand demeanour delicate and gentle.\"\n\nIs not the following portrait--the portrait of a house slave?  \"I\nam astonished at the folly of many women, who are still reproaching\ntheir husbands for leaving them alone, for preferring this or that\ncompany to theirs, for treating them with this and the other mark\nof disregard or indifference; when, to speak the truth, they have\nthemselves in a great measure to blame.  Not that I would justify\nthe men in any thing wrong on their part.  But had you behaved to\nthem with more RESPECTFUL OBSERVANCE, and a more EQUAL TENDERNESS;\nSTUDYING THEIR HUMOURS, OVERLOOKING THEIR MISTAKES, SUBMITTING TO\nTHEIR OPINIONS in matters indifferent, passing by little instances\nof unevenness, caprice, or passion, giving SOFT answers to hasty\nwords, complaining as seldom as possible, and making it your daily\ncare to relieve their anxieties and prevent their wishes, to\nenliven the hour of dulness, and call up the ideas of felicity:\nhad you pursued this conduct, I doubt not but you would have\nmaintained and even increased their esteem, so far as to have\nsecured every degree of influence that could conduce to their\nvirtue, or your mutual satisfaction; and your house might at this\nday have been the abode of domestic bliss.\"  Such a woman ought to\nbe an angel--or she is an ass--for I discern not a trace of the\nhuman character, neither reason nor passion in this domestic\ndrudge, whose being is absorbed in that of a tyrant's.\n\nStill Dr. Fordyce must have very little acquaintance with the human\nheart, if he really supposed that such conduct would bring back\nwandering love, instead of exciting contempt.  No, beauty,\ngentleness, etc. etc. may gain a heart; but esteem, the only\nlasting affection, can alone be obtained by virtue supported by\nreason.  It is respect for the understanding that keeps alive\ntenderness for the person.\n\nAs these volumes are so frequently put into the hands of young\npeople, I have taken more notice of them than strictly speaking,\nthey deserve; but as they have contributed to vitiate the taste,\nand enervate the understanding of many of my fellow-creatures, I\ncould not pass them silently over.\n\nSECTION 5.3.\n\nSuch paternal solicitude pervades Dr. Gregory's Legacy to his\ndaughters, that I enter on the task of criticism with affectionate\nrespect; but as this little volume has many attractions to\nrecommend it to the notice of the most respectable part of my sex,\nI cannot silently pass over arguments that so speciously support\nopinions which, I think, have had the most baneful effect on the\nmorals and manners of the female world.\n\nHis easy familiar style is particularly suited to the tenor of his\nadvice, and the melancholy tenderness which his respect for the\nmemory of a beloved wife diffuses through the whole work, renders\nit very interesting; yet there is a degree of concise elegance\nconspicuous in many passages, that disturbs this sympathy; and we\npop on the author, when we only expected to meet the--father.\n\nBesides, having two objects in view, he seldom adhered steadily to\neither; for, wishing to make his daughters amiable, and fearing\nlest unhappiness should only be the consequence, of instilling\nsentiments, that might draw them out of the track of common life,\nwithout enabling them to act with consonant independence and\ndignity, he checks the natural flow of his thoughts, and neither\nadvises one thing nor the other.\n\nIn the preface he tells them a mournful truth, \"that they will\nhear, at least once in their lives, the genuine sentiments of a\nman, who has no interest in deceiving them.\"\n\nHapless woman! what can be expected from thee, when the beings on\nwhom thou art said naturally to depend for reason and support, have\nall an interest in deceiving thee!  This is the root of the evil\nthat has shed a corroding mildew on all thy virtues; and blighting\nin the bud thy opening faculties, has rendered thee the weak thing\nthou art!  It is this separate interest-- this insidious state of\nwarfare, that undermines morality, and divides mankind!\n\nIf love has made some women wretched--how many more has the cold\nunmeaning intercourse of gallantry rendered vain and useless! yet\nthis heartless attention to the sex is reckoned so manly, so\npolite, that till society is very differently organized, I fear,\nthis vestige of gothic manners will not be done away by a more\nreasonable and affectionate mode of conduct.  Besides, to strip it\nof its imaginary dignity, I must observe, that in the most\ncivilized European states, this lip-service prevails in a very\ngreat degree, accompanied with extreme dissoluteness of morals.  In\nPortugal, the country that I particularly allude to, it takes place\nof the most serious moral obligations; for a man is seldom\nassassinated when in the company of a woman.  The savage hand of\nrapine is unnerved by this chivalrous spirit; and, if the stroke of\nvengeance cannot be stayed--the lady is entreated to pardon the\nrudeness and depart in peace, though sprinkled, perhaps, with her\nhusband's or brother's blood.\n\nI shall pass over his strictures on religion, because I mean to\ndiscuss that subject in a separate chapter.\n\nThe remarks relative to behaviour, though many of them very\nsensible, I entirely disapprove of, because it appears to me to be\nbeginning, as it were at the wrong end.  A cultivated\nunderstanding, and an affectionate heart, will never want starched\nrules of decorum, something more substantial than seemliness will\nbe the result; and, without understanding, the behaviour here\nrecommended, would be rank affectation.  Decorum, indeed, is the\none thing needful!  decorum is to supplant nature, and banish all\nsimplicity and variety of character out of the female world.  Yet\nwhat good end can all this superficial counsel produce?  It is,\nhowever, much easier to point out this or that mode of behaviour,\nthan to set the reason to work; but, when the mind has been stored\nwith useful knowledge, and strengthened by being employed, the\nregulation of the behaviour may safely be left to its guidance.\n\nWhy, for instance, should the following caution be given, when art\nof every kind must contaminate the mind; and why entangle the grand\nmotives of action, which reason and religion equally combine to\nenforce, with pitiful worldly shifts and slight of hand tricks to\ngain the applause of gaping tasteless fools?  \"Be even cautious in\ndisplaying your good sense.*  It will be thought you assume a\nsuperiority over the rest of the company-- But if you happen to\nhave any learning keep it a profound secret, especially from the\nmen, who generally look with a jealous and malignant eye on a woman\nof great parts, and a cultivated understanding.\"  If men of real\nmerit, as he afterwards observes, are superior to this meanness,\nwhere is the necessity that the behaviour of the whole sex should\nbe modulated to please fools, or men, who having little claim to\nrespect as individuals, choose to keep close in their phalanx.\nMen, indeed, who insist on their common superiority, having only\nthis sexual superiority, are certainly very excusable.\n\n(*Footnote.  Let women once acquire good sense--and if it deserve\nthe name, it will teach them; or, of what use will it be how to\nemploy it.)\n\nThere would be no end to rules for behaviour, if it be proper\nalways to adopt the tone of the company; for thus, for ever varying\nthe key, a FLAT would often pass for a NATURAL note.\n\nSurely it would have been wiser to have advised women to improve\nthemselves till they rose above the fumes of vanity; and then to\nlet the public opinion come round--for where are rules of\naccommodation to stop?  The narrow path of truth and virtue\ninclines neither to the right nor left, it is a straight-forward\nbusiness, and they who are earnestly pursuing their road, may bound\nover many decorous prejudices, without leaving modesty behind.\nMake the heart clean, and give the head employment, and I will\nventure to predict that there will be nothing offensive in the\nbehaviour.\n\nThe air of fashion, which many young people are so eager to attain,\nalways strikes me like the studied attitudes of some modern prints,\ncopied with tasteless servility after the antiques; the soul is\nleft out, and none of the parts are tied together by what may\nproperly be termed character.  This varnish of fashion, which\nseldom sticks very close to sense, may dazzle the weak; but leave\nnature to itself, and it will seldom disgust the wise.  Besides,\nwhen a woman has sufficient sense not to pretend to any thing which\nshe does not understand in some degree, there is no need of\ndetermining to hide her talents under a bushel.  Let things take\ntheir natural course, and all will be well.\n\nIt is this system of dissimulation, throughout the volume, that I\ndespise.  Women are always to SEEM to be this and that--yet virtue\nmight apostrophize them, in the words of Hamlet--Seems!  I know not\nseems!--Have that within that passeth show!--\n\nStill the same tone occurs; for in another place, after\nrecommending, (without sufficiently discriminating) delicacy, he\nadds, \"The men will complain of your reserve.  They will assure you\nthat a franker behaviour would make you more amiable.  But, trust\nme, they are not sincere when they tell you so.  I acknowledge that\non some occasions it might render you more agreeable as companions,\nbut it would make you less amiable as women:  an important\ndistinction, which many of your sex are not aware of.\"\n\nThis desire of being always women, is the very consciousness that\ndegrades the sex.  Excepting with a lover, I must repeat with\nemphasis, a former observation--it would be well if they were only\nagreeable or rational companions.  But in this respect his advice\nis even inconsistent with a passage which I mean to quote with the\nmost marked approbation.\n\n\"The sentiment, that a woman may allow all innocent freedoms,\nprovided her virtue is secure, is both grossly indelicate and\ndangerous, and has proved fatal to many of your sex.\"  With this\nopinion I perfectly coincide.  A man, or a woman, of any feeling\nmust always wish to convince a beloved object that it is the\ncaresses of the individual, not the sex, that is received and\nreturned with pleasure; and, that the heart, rather than the\nsenses, is moved.  Without this natural delicacy, love becomes a\nselfish personal gratification that soon degrades the character.\n\nI carry this sentiment still further.  Affection, when love is out\nof the question, authorises many personal endearments, that\nnaturally flowing from an innocent heart give life to the\nbehaviour; but the personal intercourse of appetite, gallantry, or\nvanity, is despicable.  When a man squeezes the hand of a pretty\nwoman, handing her to a carriage, whom he has never seen before,\nshe will consider such an impertinent freedom in the light of an\ninsult, if she have any true delicacy, instead of being flattered\nby this unmeaning homage to beauty.  These are the privileges of\nfriendship, or the momentary homage which the heart pays to virtue,\nwhen it flashes suddenly on the notice--mere animal spirits have no\nclaim to the kindnesses of affection.\n\nWishing to feed the affections with what is now the food of vanity,\nI would fain persuade my sex to act from simpler principles.  Let\nthem merit love, and they will obtain it, though they may never be\ntold that:  \"The power of a fine woman over the hearts of men, of\nmen of the finest parts, is even beyond what she conceives.\"\n\nI have already noticed the narrow cautions with respect to\nduplicity, female softness, delicacy of constitution; for these are\nthe changes which he rings round without ceasing, in a more\ndecorous manner, it is true, than Rousseau; but it all comes home\nto the same point, and whoever is at the trouble to analyze these\nsentiments, will find the first principles not quite so delicate as\nthe superstructure.\n\nThe subject of amusements is treated in too cursory a manner; but\nwith the same spirit.\n\nWhen I treat of friendship, love, and marriage, it will be found\nthat we materially differ in opinion; I shall not then forestall\nwhat I have to observe on these important subjects; but confine my\nremarks to the general tenor of them, to that cautious family\nprudence, to those confined views of partial unenlightened\naffection, which exclude pleasure and improvement, by vainly\nwishing to ward off sorrow and error--and by thus guarding the\nheart and mind, destroy also all their energy.  It is far better to\nbe often deceived than never to trust; to be disappointed in love,\nthan never to love; to lose a husband's fondness, than forfeit his\nesteem.\n\nHappy would it be for the world, and for individuals, of course, if\nall this unavailing solicitude to attain worldly happiness, on a\nconfined plan, were turned into an anxious desire to improve the\nunderstanding.  \"Wisdom is the principal thing:  THEREFORE get\nwisdom; and with all thy gettings get understanding.\"  \"How long ye\nsimple ones, will ye love simplicity, and hate knowledge?\"  Saith\nWisdom to the daughters of men!\n\nSECTION 5.4.\n\nI do not mean to allude to all the writers who have written on the\nsubject of female manners--it would in fact be only beating over\nthe old ground, for they have, in general, written in the same\nstrain; but attacking the boasted prerogative of man--the\nprerogative that may emphatically be called the iron sceptre of\ntyranny, the original sin of tyrants, I declare against all power\nbuilt on prejudices, however hoary.\n\nIf the submission demanded be founded on justice--there is no\nappealing to a higher power--for God is justice itself.  Let us\nthen, as children of the same parent, if not bastardized by being\nthe younger born, reason together, and learn to submit to the\nauthority of reason when her voice is distinctly heard.  But, if it\nbe proved that this throne of prerogative only rests on a chaotic\nmass of prejudices, that have no inherent principle of order to\nkeep them together, or on an elephant, tortoise, or even the mighty\nshoulders of a son of the earth, they may escape, who dare to brave\nthe consequence without any breach of duty, without sinning against\nthe order of things.\n\nWhilst reason raises man above the brutal herd, and death is big\nwith promises, they alone are subject to blind authority who have\nno reliance on their own strength.  \"They are free who will be\nfree!\"*\n\n(*Footnote.  \"He is the free man, whom TRUTH makes free!\"  Cowper.)\n\nThe being who can govern itself, has nothing to fear in life; but\nif any thing is dearer than its own respect, the price must be paid\nto the last farthing.  Virtue, like every thing valuable, must be\nloved for herself alone; or she will not take up her abode with us.\nShe will not impart that peace, \"which passeth understanding,\" when\nshe is merely made the stilts of reputation and respected with\npharisaical exactness, because \"honesty is the best policy.\"\n\nThat the plan of life which enables us to carry some knowledge and\nvirtue into another world, is the one best calculated to ensure\ncontent in this, cannot be denied; yet few people act according to\nthis principle, though it be universally allowed that it admits not\nof dispute.  Present pleasure, or present power, carry before it\nthese sober convictions; and it is for the day, not for life, that\nman bargains with happiness.  How few! how very few! have\nsufficient foresight or resolution, to endure a small evil at the\nmoment, to avoid a greater hereafter.\n\nWoman in particular, whose virtue* is built on mutual prejudices,\nseldom attains to this greatness of mind; so that, becoming the\nslave of her own feelings, she is easily subjugated by those of\nothers.  Thus degraded, her reason, her misty reason! is employed\nrather to burnish than to snap her chains.\n\n(*Footnote.  I mean to use a word that comprehends more than\nchastity, the sexual virtue.)\n\nIndignantly have I heard women argue in the same track as men, and\nadopt the sentiments that brutalize them with all the pertinacity\nof ignorance.\n\nI must illustrate my assertion by a few examples.  Mrs. Piozzi, who\noften repeated by rote, what she did not understand, comes forward\nwith Johnsonian periods.\n\n\"Seek not for happiness in singularity; and dread a refinement of\nwisdom as a deviation into folly.\"  Thus she dogmatically addresses\na new married man; and to elucidate this pompous exordium, she\nadds, \"I said that the person of your lady would not grow more\npleasing to you, but pray let her never suspect that it grows less\nso:  that a woman will pardon an affront to her understanding much\nsooner than one to her person, is well known; nor will any of us\ncontradict the assertion.  All our attainments, all our arts, are\nemployed to gain and keep the heart of man; and what mortification\ncan exceed the disappointment, if the end be not obtained: There is\nno reproof however pointed, no punishment however severe, that a\nwoman of spirit will not prefer to neglect; and if she can endure\nit without complaint, it only proves that she means to make herself\namends by the attention of others for the slights of her husband!\"\n\nThese are true masculine sentiments.  \"All our ARTS are employed to\ngain and keep the heart of man:\"--and what is the inference?--if\nher person, and was there ever a person, though formed with\nMedicisan symmetry, that was not slighted? be neglected, she will\nmake herself amends by endeavouring to please other men.  Noble\nmorality!  But thus is the understanding of the whole sex\naffronted, and their virtue deprived of the common basis of virtue.\nA woman must know, that her person cannot be as pleasing to her\nhusband as it was to her lover, and if she be offended with him for\nbeing a human creature, she may as well whine about the loss of his\nheart as about any other foolish thing.  And this very want of\ndiscernment or unreasonable anger, proves that he could not change\nhis fondness for her person into affection for her virtues or\nrespect for her understanding.\n\nWhilst women avow, and act up to such opinions, their\nunderstandings, at least, deserve the contempt and obloquy that\nmen, WHO NEVER insult their persons, have pointedly levelled at the\nfemale mind.  And it is the sentiments of these polite men, who do\nnot wish to be encumbered with mind, that vain women thoughtlessly\nadopt.  Yet they should know, that insulted reason alone can spread\nthat SACRED reserve about the persons which renders human\naffections, for human affections have always some base alloy, as\npermanent as is consistent with the grand end of existence--the\nattainment of virtue.\n\nThe Baroness de Stael speaks the same language as the lady just\ncited, with more enthusiasm.  Her eulogium on Rousseau was\naccidentally put into my hands, and her sentiments, the sentiments\nof too many of my sex, may serve as the text for a few comments.\n\"Though Rousseau,\" she observes, \"has endeavoured to prevent women\nfrom interfering in public affairs, and acting a brilliant part in\nthe theatre of politics; yet, in speaking of them, how much has he\ndone it to their satisfaction!  If he wished to deprive them of\nsome rights, foreign to their sex, how has he for ever restored to\nthem all those to which it has a claim!  And in attempting to\ndiminish their influence over the deliberations of men, how\nsacredly has he established the empire they have over their\nhappiness!  In aiding them to descend from an usurped throne, he\nhas firmly seated them upon that to which they were destined by\nnature; and though he be full of indignation against them when they\nendeavour to resemble men, yet when they come before him with all\nTHE CHARMS WEAKNESSES, VIRTUES, and ERRORS, OF their sex, his\nrespect for their PERSONS amounts almost to adoration.\"  True!--For\nnever was there a sensualist who paid more fervent adoration at the\nshrine of beauty.  So devout, indeed, was his respect for the\nperson, that excepting the virtue of chastity, for obvious reasons,\nhe only wished to see it embellished by charms, weaknesses, and\nerrors.  He was afraid lest the austerity of reason should disturb\nthe soft playfulness of love.  The master wished to have a\nmeretricious slave to fondle, entirely dependent on his reason and\nbounty; he did not want a companion, whom he should be compelled to\nesteem, or a friend to whom he could confide the care of his\nchildren's education, should death deprive them of their father,\nbefore he had fulfilled the sacred task.  He denies woman reason,\nshuts her out from knowledge, and turns her aside from truth; yet\nhis pardon is granted, because, \"he admits the passion of love.\"\nIt would require some ingenuity to show why women were to be under\nsuch an obligation to him for thus admitting love; when it is clear\nthat he admits it only for the relaxation of men, and to perpetuate\nthe species; but he talked with passion, and that powerful spell\nworked on the sensibility of a young encomiast.  \"What signifies\nit,\" pursues this rhapsodist, \"to women, that his reason disputes\nwith them the empire, when his heart is devotedly theirs.\"  It is\nnot empire--but equality, that they should contend for.  Yet, if\nthey only wished to lengthen out their sway, they should not\nentirely trust to their persons, for though beauty may gain a\nheart, it cannot keep it, even while the beauty is in full bloom,\nunless the mind lend, at least, some graces.\n\nWhen women are once sufficiently enlightened to discover their real\ninterest, on a grand scale, they will, I am persuaded, be very\nready to resign all the prerogatives of love, that are not mutual,\n(speaking of them as lasting prerogatives,) for the calm\nsatisfaction of friendship, and the tender confidence of habitual\nesteem.  Before marriage they will not assume any insolent airs,\nnor afterward abjectly submit; but, endeavouring to act like\nreasonable creatures, in both situations, they will not be tumbled\nfrom a throne to a stool.\n\nMadame Genlis has written several entertaining books for children;\nand her letters on Education afford many useful hints, that\nsensible parents will certainly avail themselves of; but her views\nare narrow, and her prejudices as unreasonable as strong.\n\nI shall pass over her vehement argument in favour of the eternity\nof future punishments, because I blush to think that a human being\nshould ever argue vehemently in such a cause, and only make a few\nremarks on her absurd manner of making the parental authority\nsupplant reason.  For every where does she inculcate not only BLIND\nsubmission to parents; but to the opinion of the world.*\n\n(*Footnote.  A person is not to act in this or that way, though\nconvinced they are right in so doing, because some equivocal\ncircumstances may lead the world to SUSPECT that they acted from\ndifferent motives.  This is sacrificing the substance for a shadow.\nLet people but watch their own hearts, and act rightly as far as\nthey can judge, and they may patiently wait till the opinion of the\nworld comes round.  It is best to be directed by a simple\nmotive--for justice has too often been sacrificed to\npropriety;--another word for convenience.)\n\nShe tells a story of a young man engaged by his father's express\ndesire to a girl of fortune.  Before the marriage could take place\nshe is deprived of her fortune, and thrown friendless on the world.\nThe father practises the most infamous arts to separate his son\nfrom her, and when the son detects his villany, and, following the\ndictates of honour, marries the girl, nothing but misery ensues,\nbecause forsooth he married WITHOUT his father's consent.  On what\nground can religion or morality rest, when justice is thus set at\ndefiance?  In the same style she represents an accomplished young\nwoman, as ready to marry any body that her MAMMA pleased to\nrecommend; and, as actually marrying the young man of her own\nchoice, without feeling any emotions of passion, because that a\nwell educated girl had not time to be in love.  Is it possible to\nhave much respect for a system of education that thus insults\nreason and nature?\n\nMany similar opinions occur in her writings, mixed with sentiments\nthat do honour to her head and heart.  Yet so much superstition is\nmixed with her religion, and so much worldly wisdom with her\nmorality, that I should not let a young person read her works,\nunless I could afterwards converse on the subjects, and point out\nthe contradictions.\n\nMrs. Chapone's Letters are written with such good sense, and\nunaffected humility, and contain so many useful observations, that\nI only mention them to pay the worthy writer this tribute of\nrespect.  I cannot, it is true, always coincide in opinion with\nher; but I always respect her.\n\nThe very word respect brings Mrs. Macaulay to my remembrance.  The\nwoman of the greatest abilities, undoubtedly, that this country has\never produced.  And yet this woman has been suffered to die without\nsufficient respect being paid to her memory.\n\nPosterity, however, will be more just; and remember that Catharine\nMacaulay was an example of intellectual acquirements supposed to be\nincompatible with the weakness of her sex.  In her style of\nwriting, indeed, no sex appears, for it is like the sense it\nconveys, strong and clear.\n\nI will not call her's a masculine understanding, because I admit\nnot of such an arrogant assumption of reason; but I contend that it\nwas a sound one, and that her judgment, the matured fruit of\nprofound thinking, was a proof that a woman can acquire judgment,\nin the full extent of the word.  Possessing more penetration than\nsagacity, more understanding than fancy, she writes with sober\nenergy, and argumentative closeness; yet sympathy and benevolence\ngive an interest to her sentiments, and that vital heat to\narguments, which forces the reader to weigh them.*\n\n(*Footnote.  Coinciding in opinion with Mrs. Macaulay relative to\nmany branches of education, I refer to her valuable work, instead\nof quoting her sentiments to support my own.)\n\nWhen I first thought of writing these strictures I anticipated Mrs.\nMacaulay's approbation with a little of that sanguine ardour which\nit has been the business of my life to depress; but soon heard with\nthe sickly qualm of disappointed hope, and the still seriousness of\nregret--that she was no more!\n\nSECTION 5.5.\n\nTaking a view of the different works which have been written on\neducation, Lord Chesterfield's Letters must not be silently passed\nover.  Not that I mean to analyze his unmanly, immoral system, or\neven to cull any of the useful shrewd remarks which occur in his\nfrivolous correspondence--No, I only mean to make a few reflections\non the avowed tendency of them--the art of acquiring an early\nknowledge of the world.  An art, I will venture to assert, that\npreys secretly, like the worm in the bud, on the expanding powers,\nand turns to poison the generous juices which should mount with\nvigour in the youthful frame, inspiring warm affections and great\nresolves.\n\nFor every thing, saith the wise man, there is reason; and who would\nlook for the fruits of autumn during the genial months of spring?\nBut this is mere declamation, and I mean to reason with those\nworldly-wise instructors, who, instead of cultivating the judgment,\ninstil prejudices, and render hard the heart that gradual\nexperience would only have cooled.  An early acquaintance with\nhuman infirmities; or, what is termed knowledge of the world, is\nthe surest way, in my opinion, to contract the heart and damp the\nnatural youthful ardour which produces not only great talents, but\ngreat virtues.  For the vain attempt to bring forth the fruit of\nexperience, before the sapling has thrown out its leaves, only\nexhausts its strength, and prevents its assuming a natural form;\njust as the form and strength of subsiding metals are injured when\nthe attraction of cohesion is disturbed.  Tell me, ye who have\nstudied the human mind, is it not a strange way to fix principles\nby showing young people that they are seldom stable?  And how can\nthey be fortified by habits when they are proved to be fallacious\nby example?  Why is the ardour of youth thus to be damped, and the\nluxuriancy of fancy cut to the quick?  This dry caution may, it is\ntrue, guard a character from worldly mischances; but will\ninfallibly preclude excellence in either virtue or knowledge.  The\nstumbling-block thrown across every path by suspicion, will prevent\nany vigorous exertions of genius or benevolence, and life will be\nstripped of its most alluring charm long before its calm evening,\nwhen man should retire to contemplation for comfort and support.\n\nA young man who has been bred up with domestic friends, and led to\nstore his mind with as much speculative knowledge as can be\nacquired by reading and the natural reflections which youthful\nebullitions of animal spirits and instinctive feelings inspire,\nwill enter the world with warm and erroneous expectations.  But\nthis appears to be the course of nature; and in morals, as well as\nin works of taste, we should be observant of her sacred\nindications, and not presume to lead when we ought obsequiously to\nfollow.\n\nIn the world few people act from principle; present feelings, and\nearly habits, are the grand springs:  but how would the former be\ndeadened, and the latter rendered iron corroding fetters, if the\nworld were shown to young people just as it is; when no knowledge\nof mankind or their own hearts, slowly obtained by experience\nrendered them forbearing?  Their fellow creatures would not then be\nviewed as frail beings; like themselves, condemned to struggle with\nhuman infirmities, and sometimes displaying the light and sometimes\nthe dark side of their character; extorting alternate feelings of\nlove and disgust; but guarded against as beasts of prey, till every\nenlarged social feeling, in a word--humanity, was eradicated.\n\nIn life, on the contrary, as we gradually discover the\nimperfections of our nature, we discover virtues, and various\ncircumstances attach us to our fellow creatures, when we mix with\nthem, and view the same objects, that are never thought of in\nacquiring a hasty unnatural knowledge of the world.  We see a folly\nswell into a vice, by almost imperceptible degrees, and pity while\nwe blame; but, if the hideous monster burst suddenly on our sight,\nfear and disgust rendering us more severe than man ought to be,\nmight lead us with blind zeal to usurp the character of\nomnipotence, and denounce damnation on our fellow mortals,\nforgetting that we cannot read the heart, and that we have seeds of\nthe same vices lurking in our own.\n\nI have already remarked, that we expect more from instruction, than\nmere instruction can produce:  for, instead of preparing young\npeople to encounter the evils of life with dignity, and to acquire\nwisdom and virtue by the exercise of their own faculties, precepts\nare heaped upon precepts, and blind obedience required, when\nconviction should be brought home to reason.\n\nSuppose, for instance, that a young person in the first ardour of\nfriendship deifies the beloved object--what harm can arise from\nthis mistaken enthusiastic attachment?  Perhaps it is necessary for\nvirtue first to appear in a human form to impress youthful hearts;\nthe ideal model, which a more matured and exalted mind looks up to,\nand shapes for itself, would elude their sight.  He who loves not\nhis brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God? asked the\nwisest of men.\n\nIt is natural for youth to adorn the first object of its affection\nwith every good quality, and the emulation produced by ignorance,\nor, to speak with more propriety, by inexperience, brings forward\nthe mind capable of forming such an affection, and when, in the\nlapse of time, perfection is found not to be within the reach of\nmortals, virtue, abstractly, is thought beautiful, and wisdom\nsublime.  Admiration then gives place to friendship, properly so\ncalled, because it is cemented by esteem; and the being walks alone\nonly dependent on heaven for that emulous panting after perfection\nwhich ever glows in a noble mind.  But this knowledge a man must\ngain by the exertion of his own faculties; and this is surely the\nblessed fruit of disappointed hope! for He who delighteth to\ndiffuse happiness and show mercy to the weak creatures, who are\nlearning to know him, never implanted a good propensity to be a\ntormenting ignis fatuus.\n\nOur trees are now allowed to spread with wild luxuriance, nor do we\nexpect by force to combine the majestic marks of time with youthful\ngraces; but wait patiently till they have struck deep their root,\nand braved many a storm.  Is the mind then, which, in proportion to\nits dignity advances more slowly towards perfection, to be treated\nwith less respect?  To argue from analogy, every thing around us is\nin a progressive state; and when an unwelcome knowledge of life\nproduces almost a satiety of life, and we discover by the natural\ncourse of things that all that is done under the sun is vanity, we\nare drawing near the awful close of the drama.  The days of\nactivity and hope are over, and the opportunities which the first\nstage of existence has afforded of advancing in the scale of\nintelligence, must soon be summed up.  A knowledge at this period\nof the futility of life, or earlier, if obtained by experience, is\nvery useful, because it is natural; but when a frail being is shown\nthe follies and vices of man, that he may be taught prudently to\nguard against the common casualties of life by sacrificing his\nheart--surely it is not speaking harshly to call it the wisdom of\nthis world, contrasted with the nobler fruit of piety and\nexperience.\n\nI will venture a paradox, and deliver my opinion without reserve;\nif men were only born to form a circle of life and death, it would\nbe wise to take every step that foresight could suggest to render\nlife happy.  Moderation in every pursuit would then be supreme\nwisdom; and the prudent voluptuary might enjoy a degree of content,\nthough he neither cultivated his understanding nor kept his heart\npure.  Prudence, supposing we were mortal, would be true wisdom,\nor, to be more explicit, would procure the greatest portion of\nhappiness, considering the whole of life; but knowledge beyond the\nconveniences of life would be a curse.\n\nWhy should we injure our health by close study?  The exalted\npleasure which intellectual pursuits afford would scarcely be\nequivalent to the hours of languor that follow; especially, if it\nbe necessary to take into the reckoning the doubts and\ndisappointments that cloud our researches.  Vanity and vexation\nclose every inquiry:  for the cause which we particularly wished to\ndiscover flies like the horizon before us as we advance.  The\nignorant, on the contrary, resemble children, and suppose, that if\nthey could walk straight forward they should at last arrive where\nthe earth and clouds meet.  Yet, disappointed as we are in our\nresearches, the mind gains strength by the exercise, sufficient,\nperhaps, to comprehend the answers which, in another step of\nexistence, it may receive to the anxious questions it asked, when\nthe understanding with feeble wing was fluttering round the visible\neffects to dive into the hidden cause.\n\nThe passions also, the winds of life, would be useless, if not\ninjurious, did the substance which composes our thinking being,\nafter we have thought in vain, only become the support of vegetable\nlife, and invigorate a cabbage, or blush in a rose.  The appetites\nwould answer every earthly purpose, and produce more moderate and\npermanent happiness.  But the powers of the soul that are of little\nuse here, and, probably, disturb our animal enjoyments, even while\nconscious dignity makes us glory in possessing them, prove that\nlife is merely an education, a state of infancy, of which the only\nhopes worth cherishing should not be sacrificed.  I mean, therefore\nto infer, that we ought to have a precise idea of what we wish to\nattain by education, for the immortality of the soul is\ncontradicted by the actions of many people, who firmly profess the\nbelief.\n\nIf you mean to secure ease and prosperity on earth as the first\nconsideration, and leave futurity to provide for itself, you act\nprudently in giving your child an early insight into the weaknesses\nof his nature.  You may not, it is true, make an Inkle of him; but\ndo not imagine that he will stick to more than the letter of the\nlaw, who has very early imbibed a mean opinion of human nature; nor\nwill he think it necessary to rise much above the common standard.\nHe may avoid gross vices, because honesty is the best policy; but\nhe will never aim at attaining great virtues.  The example of\nwriters and artists will illustrate this remark.\n\nI must therefore venture to doubt, whether what has been thought an\naxiom in morals, may not have been a dogmatical assertion made by\nmen who have coolly seen mankind through the medium of books, and\nsay, in direct contradiction to them, that the regulation of the\npassions is not always wisdom.  On the contrary, it should seem,\nthat one reason why men have superiour judgment and more fortitude\nthan women, is undoubtedly this, that they give a freer scope to\nthe grand passions, and by more frequently going astray, enlarge\ntheir minds.  If then by the exercise of their own reason, they fix\non some stable principle, they have probably to thank the force of\ntheir passions, nourished by FALSE views of life, and permitted to\noverleap the boundary that secures content.  But if, in the dawn of\nlife, we could soberly survey the scenes before us as in\nperspective, and see every thing in its true colours, how could the\npassions gain sufficient strength to unfold the faculties?\n\nLet me now, as from an eminence, survey the world stripped of all\nits false delusive charms.  The clear atmosphere enables me to see\neach object in its true point of view, while my heart is still.  I\nam calm as the prospect in a morning when the mists, slowly\ndispersing, silently unveil the beauties of nature, refreshed by\nrest.\n\nIn what light will the world now appear?  I rub my eyes and think,\nperchance, that I am just awaking from a lively dream.\n\nI see the sons and daughters of men pursuing shadows, and anxiously\nwasting their powers to feed passions which have no adequate\nobject--if the very excess of these blind impulses pampered by that\nlying, yet constantly-trusted guide, the imagination, did not, by\npreparing them for some other state, render short sighted mortals\nwiser without their own concurrence; or, what comes to the same\nthing, when they were pursuing some imaginary present good.\n\nAfter viewing objects in this light, it would not be very fanciful\nto imagine, that this world was a stage on which a pantomime is\ndaily performed for the amusement of superiour beings.  How would\nthey be diverted to see the ambitious man consuming himself by\nrunning after a phantom, and, pursuing the bubble fame in \"the\ncannon's mouth\" that was to blow him to nothing:  for when\nconsciousness is lost, it matters not whether we mount in a\nwhirlwind or descend in rain.  And should they compassionately\ninvigorate his sight, and show him the thorny path which led to\neminence, that like a quicksand sinks as he ascends, disappointing\nhis hopes when almost within his grasp, would he not leave to\nothers the honour of amusing them, and labour to secure the present\nmoment, though from the constitution of his nature he would not\nfind it very easy to catch the flying stream?  Such slaves are we\nto hope and fear!\n\nBut, vain as the ambitious man's pursuit would be, he is often\nstriving for something more substantial than fame--that indeed\nwould be the veriest meteor, the wildest fire that could lure a man\nto ruin.  What! renounce the most trifling gratification to be\napplauded when he should be no more! Wherefore this struggle,\nwhether man is mortal or immortal, if that noble passion did not\nreally raise the being above his fellows?\n\nAnd love!  What diverting scenes would it produce--Pantaloon's\ntricks must yield to more egregious folly.  To see a mortal adorn\nan object with imaginary charms, and then fall down and worship the\nidol which he had himself set up--how ridiculous!  But what serious\nconsequences ensue to rob man of that portion of happiness, which\nthe Deity by calling him into existence has (or, on what can his\nattributes rest?) indubitably promised; would not all the purposes\nof life have been much better fulfilled if he had only felt what\nhas been termed physical love?  And, would not the sight of the\nobject, not seen through the medium of the imagination, soon reduce\nthe passion to an appetite, if reflection, the noble distinction of\nman, did not give it force, and make it an instrument to raise him\nabove this earthy dross, by teaching him to love the centre of all\nperfection! whose wisdom appears clearer and clearer in the works\nof nature, in proportion as reason is illuminated and exalted by\ncontemplation, and by acquiring that love of order which the\nstruggles of passion produce?\n\nThe habit of reflection, and the knowledge attained by fostering\nany passion, might be shown to be equally useful though the object\nbe proved equally fallacious; for they would all appear in the same\nlight, if they were not magnified by the governing passion\nimplanted in us by the Author of all good, to call forth and\nstrengthen the faculties of each individual, and enable it to\nattain all the experience that an infant can obtain, who does\ncertain things, it cannot tell why.\n\nI descend from my height, and mixing with my fellow creatures, feel\nmyself hurried along the common stream; ambition, love, hope, and\nfear, exert their wonted power, though we be convinced by reason\nthat their present and most attractive promises are only lying\ndreams; but had the cold hand of circumspection damped each\ngenerous feeling before it had left any permanent character, or\nfixed some habit, what could be expected, but selfish prudence and\nreason just rising above instinct?  Who that has read Dean Swift's\ndisgusting description of the Yahoos, and insipid one of Houyhnhnm\nwith a philosophical eye, can avoid seeing the futility of\ndegrading the passions, or making man rest in contentment?\n\nThe youth should ACT; for had he the experience of a grey head, he\nwould be fitter for death than life, though his virtues, rather\nresiding in his head than his heart could produce nothing great,\nand his understanding prepared for this world, would not, by its\nnoble flights, prove that it had a title to a better.\n\nBesides, it is not possible to give a young person a just view of\nlife; he must have struggled with his own passions before he can\nestimate the force of the temptation which betrayed his brother\ninto vice.  Those who are entering life, and those who are\ndeparting, see the world from such very different points of view,\nthat they can seldom think alike, unless the unfledged reason of\nthe former never attempted a solitary flight.\n\nWhen we hear of some daring crime--it comes full upon us in the\ndeepest shade of turpitude, and raises indignation; but the eye\nthat gradually saw the darkness thicken, must observe it with more\ncompassionate forbearance.  The world cannot be seen by an unmoved\nspectator, we must mix in the throng, and feel as men feel before\nwe can judge of their feelings.  If we mean, in short, to live in\nthe world to grow wiser and better, and not merely to enjoy the\ngood things of life, we must attain a knowledge of others at the\nsame time that we become acquainted with ourselves-- knowledge\nacquired any other way only hardens the heart and perplexes the\nunderstanding.\n\nI may be told, that the knowledge thus acquired, is sometimes\npurchased at too dear a rate.  I can only answer, that I very much\ndoubt whether any knowledge can be attained without labour and\nsorrow; and those who wish to spare their children both, should not\ncomplain if they are neither wise nor virtuous.  They only aimed at\nmaking them prudent; and prudence, early in life, is but the\ncautious craft of ignorant self-love.  I have observed, that young\npeople, to whose education particular attention has been paid,\nhave, in general, been very superficial and conceited, and far from\npleasing in any respect, because they had neither the unsuspecting\nwarmth of youth, nor the cool depth of age.  I cannot help imputing\nthis unnatural appearance principally to that hasty premature\ninstruction, which leads them presumptuously to repeat all the\ncrude notions they have taken upon trust, so that the careful\neducation which they received, makes them all their lives the\nslaves of prejudices.\n\nMental as well as bodily exertion is, at first, irksome; so much\nso, that the many would fain let others both work and think for\nthem.  An observation which I have often made will illustrate my\nmeaning.  When in a circle of strangers, or acquaintances, a person\nof moderate abilities, asserts an opinion with heat, I will venture\nto affirm, for I have traced this fact home, very often, that it is\na prejudice.  These echoes have a high respect for the\nunderstanding of some relation or friend, and without fully\ncomprehending the opinions, which they are so eager to retail, they\nmaintain them with a degree of obstinacy, that would surprise even\nthe person who concocted them.\n\nI know that a kind of fashion now prevails of respecting\nprejudices; and when any one dares to face them, though actuated by\nhumanity and armed by reason, he is superciliously asked, whether\nhis ancestors were fools.  No, I should reply; opinions, at first,\nof every description, were all, probably, considered, and therefore\nwere founded on some reason; yet not unfrequently, of course, it\nwas rather a local expedient than a fundamental principle, that\nwould be reasonable at all times.  But, moss-covered opinions\nassume the disproportioned form of prejudices, when they are\nindolently adopted only because age has given them a venerable\naspect, though the reason on which they were built ceases to be a\nreason, or cannot be traced.  Why are we to love prejudices, merely\nbecause they are prejudices?  A prejudice is a fond obstinate\npersuasion, for which we can give no reason; for the moment a\nreason can be given for an opinion, it ceases to be a prejudice,\nthough it may be an error in judgment:  and are we then advised to\ncherish opinions only to set reason at defiance?  This mode of\narguing, if arguing it may be called, reminds me of what is\nvulgarly termed a woman's reason.  For women sometimes declare that\nthey love, or believe certain things, BECAUSE they love, or believe\nthem.\n\nIt is impossible to converse with people to any purpose, who, in\nthis style, only use affirmatives and negatives.  Before you can\nbring them to a point, to start fairly from, you must go back to\nthe simple principles that were antecedent to the prejudices\nbroached by power; and it is ten to one but you are stopped by the\nphilosophical assertion, that certain principles are as practically\nfalse as they are abstractly true.  Nay, it may be inferred, that\nreason has whispered some doubts, for it generally happens that\npeople assert their opinions with the greatest heat when they begin\nto waver; striving to drive out their own doubts by convincing\ntheir opponent, they grow angry when those gnawing doubts are\nthrown back to prey on themselves.\n\nThe fact is, that men expect from education, what education cannot\ngive.  A sagacious parent or tutor may strengthen the body and\nsharpen the instruments by which the child is to gather knowledge;\nbut the honey must be the reward of the individual's own industry.\nIt is almost as absurd to attempt to make a youth wise by the\nexperience of another, as to expect the body to grow strong by the\nexercise which is only talked of, or seen.\n\nMany of those children whose conduct has been most narrowly\nwatched, become the weakest men, because their instructors only\ninstill certain notions into their minds, that have no other\nfoundation than their authority; and if they are loved or\nrespected, the mind is cramped in its exertions and wavering in its\nadvances.  The business of education in this case, is only to\nconduct the shooting tendrils to a proper pole; yet after laying\nprecept upon precept, without allowing a child to acquire judgment\nitself, parents expect them to act in the same manner by this\nborrowed fallacious light, as if they had illuminated it\nthemselves; and be, when they enter life, what their parents are at\nthe close.  They do not consider that the tree, and even the human\nbody, does not strengthen its fibres till it has reached its full\ngrowth.\n\nThere appears to be something analogous in the mind.  The senses\nand the imagination give a form to the character, during childhood\nand youth; and the understanding as life advances, gives firmness\nto the first fair purposes of sensibility--till virtue, arising\nrather from the clear conviction of reason than the impulse of the\nheart, morality is made to rest on a rock against which the storms\nof passion vainly beat.\n\nI hope I shall not be misunderstood when I say, that religion will\nnot have this condensing energy, unless it be founded on reason.\nIf it be merely the refuge of weakness or wild fanaticism, and not\na governing principle of conduct, drawn from self-knowledge, and a\nrational opinion respecting the attributes of God, what can it be\nexpected to produce?  The religion which consists in warming the\naffections, and exalting the imagination, is only the poetical\npart, and may afford the individual pleasure without rendering it a\nmore moral being.  It may be a substitute for worldly pursuits; yet\nnarrow instead of enlarging the heart:  but virtue must be loved as\nin itself sublime and excellent, and not for the advantages it\nprocures or the evils it averts, if any great degree of excellence\nbe expected.  Men will not become moral when they only build airy\ncastles in a future world to compensate for the disappointments\nwhich they meet with in this; if they turn their thoughts from\nrelative duties to religious reveries.\n\nMost prospects in life are marred by the shuffling worldly wisdom\nof men, who, forgetting that they cannot serve God and mammon,\nendeavour to blend contradictory things.  If you wish to make your\nson rich, pursue one course --if you are only anxious to make him\nvirtuous, you must take another; but do not imagine that you can\nbound from one road to the other without losing your way.*\n\n(*Footnote.  See an excellent essay on this subject by Mrs.\nBarbauld, in Miscellaneous pieces in Prose.)\n\n\nCHAPTER 6.\n\nTHE EFFECT WHICH AN EARLY ASSOCIATION OF IDEAS HAS UPON THE\nCHARACTER.\n\nEducated in the enervating style recommended by the writers on whom\nI have been animadverting; and not having a chance, from their\nsubordinate state in society, to recover their lost ground, is it\nsurprising that women every where appear a defect in nature?  Is it\nsurprising, when we consider what a determinate effect an early\nassociation of ideas has on the character, that they neglect their\nunderstandings, and turn all their attention to their persons?\n\nThe great advantages which naturally result from storing the mind\nwith knowledge, are obvious from the following considerations.  The\nassociation of our ideas is either habitual or instantaneous; and\nthe latter mode seems rather to depend on the original temperature\nof the mind than on the will.  When the ideas, and matters of fact,\nare once taken in, they lie by for use, till some fortuitous\ncircumstance makes the information dart into the mind with\nillustrative force, that has been received at very different\nperiods of our lives.  Like the lightning's flash are many\nrecollections; one idea assimilating and explaining another, with\nastonishing rapidity.  I do not now allude to that quick perception\nof truth, which is so intuitive that it baffles research, and makes\nus at a loss to determine whether it is reminiscence or\nratiocination, lost sight of in its celerity, that opens the dark\ncloud.  Over those instantaneous associations we have little power;\nfor when the mind is once enlarged by excursive flights, or\nprofound reflection, the raw materials, will, in some degree,\narrange themselves.  The understanding, it is true, may keep us\nfrom going out of drawing when we group our thoughts, or transcribe\nfrom the imagination the warm sketches of fancy; but the animal\nspirits, the individual character give the colouring.  Over this\nsubtile electric fluid,* how little power do we possess, and over\nit how little power can reason obtain!  These fine intractable\nspirits appear to be the essence of genius, and beaming in its\neagle eye, produce in the most eminent degree the happy energy of\nassociating thoughts that surprise, delight, and instruct.  These\nare the glowing minds that concentrate pictures for their\nfellow-creatures; forcing them to view with interest the objects\nreflected from the impassioned imagination, which they passed over\nin nature.\n\n(*Footnote.  I have sometimes, when inclined to laugh at\nmaterialists, asked whether, as the most powerful effects in nature\nare apparently produced by fluids, the magnetic, etc. the passions\nmight not be fine volatile fluids that embraced humanity, keeping\nthe more refractory elementary parts together--or whether they were\nsimply a liquid fire that pervaded the more sluggish materials\ngiving them life and heat?)\n\nI must be allowed to explain myself.  The generality of people\ncannot see or feel poetically, they want fancy, and therefore fly\nfrom solitude in search of sensible objects; but when an author\nlends them his eyes, they can see as he saw, and be amused by\nimages they could not select, though lying before them.\n\nEducation thus only supplies the man of genius with knowledge to\ngive variety and contrast to his associations; but there is an\nhabitual association of ideas, that grows \"with our growth,\" which\nhas a great effect on the moral character of mankind; and by which\na turn is given to the mind, that commonly remains throughout life.\nSo ductile is the understanding, and yet so stubborn, that the\nassociations which depend on adventitious circumstances, during the\nperiod that the body takes to arrive at maturity, can seldom be\ndisentangled by reason.  One idea calls up another, its old\nassociate, and memory, faithful to the first impressions,\nparticularly when the intellectual powers are not employed to cool\nour sensations, retraces them with mechanical exactness.\n\nThis habitual slavery, to first impressions, has a more baneful\neffect on the female than the male character, because business and\nother dry employments of the understanding, tend to deaden the\nfeelings and break associations that do violence to reason.  But\nfemales, who are made women of when they are mere children, and\nbrought back to childhood when they ought to leave the go-cart\nforever, have not sufficient strength of mind to efface the\nsuperinductions of art that have smothered nature.\n\nEvery thing that they see or hear serves to fix impressions, call\nforth emotions, and associate ideas, that give a sexual character\nto the mind.  False notions of beauty and delicacy stop the growth\nof their limbs and produce a sickly soreness, rather than delicacy\nof organs; and thus weakened by being employed in unfolding instead\nof examining the first associations, forced on them by every\nsurrounding object, how can they attain the vigour necessary to\nenable them to throw off their factitious character?--where find\nstrength to recur to reason and rise superior to a system of\noppression, that blasts the fair promises of spring?  This cruel\nassociation of ideas, which every thing conspires to twist into all\ntheir habits of thinking, or, to speak with more precision, of\nfeeling, receives new force when they begin to act a little for\nthemselves; for they then perceive, that it is only through their\naddress to excite emotions in men, that pleasure and power are to\nbe obtained.  Besides, all the books professedly written for their\ninstruction, which make the first impression on their minds, all\ninculcate the same opinions.  Educated in worse than Egyptian\nbondage, it is unreasonable, as well as cruel, to upbraid them with\nfaults that can scarcely be avoided, unless a degree of native\nvigour be supposed, that falls to the lot of very few amongst\nmankind.\n\nFor instance, the severest sarcasms have been levelled against the\nsex, and they have been ridiculed for repeating \"a set of phrases\nlearnt by rote,\" when nothing could be more natural, considering\nthe education they receive, and that their \"highest praise is to\nobey, unargued\"--the will of man.  If they are not allowed to have\nreason sufficient to govern their own conduct--why, all they\nlearn--must be learned by rote!  And when all their ingenuity is\ncalled forth to adjust their dress, \"a passion for a scarlet coat,\"\nis so natural, that it never surprised me; and, allowing Pope's\nsummary of their character to be just, \"that every woman is at\nheart a rake,\" why should they be bitterly censured for seeking a\ncongenial mind, and preferring a rake to a man of sense?\n\nRakes know how to work on their sensibility, whilst the modest\nmerit of reasonable men has, of course, less effect on their\nfeelings, and they cannot reach the heart by the way of the\nunderstanding, because they have few sentiments in common.\n\nIt seems a little absurd to expect women to be more reasonable than\nmen in their LIKINGS, and still to deny them the uncontroled use of\nreason.  When do men FALL IN LOVE with sense?  When do they, with\ntheir superior powers and advantages, turn from the person to the\nmind?  And how can they then expect women, who are only taught to\nobserve behaviour, and acquire manners rather than morals, to\ndespise what they have been all their lives labouring to attain?\nWhere are they suddenly to find judgment enough to weigh patiently\nthe sense of an awkward virtuous man, when his manners, of which\nthey are made critical judges, are rebuffing, and his conversation\ncold and dull, because it does not consist of pretty repartees, or\nwell-turned compliments?  In order to admire or esteem any thing\nfor a continuance, we must, at least, have our curiosity excited by\nknowing, in some degree, what we admire; for we are unable to\nestimate the value of qualities and virtues above our\ncomprehension.  Such a respect, when it is felt, may be very\nsublime; and the confused consciousness of humility may render the\ndependent creature an interesting object, in some points of view;\nbut human love must have grosser ingredients; and the person very\nnaturally will come in for its share--and, an ample share it mostly\nhas!\n\nLove is, in a great degree, an arbitrary passion, and will reign\nlike some other stalking mischiefs, by its own authority, without\ndeigning to reason; and it may also be easily distinguished from\nesteem, the foundation of friendship, because it is often excited\nby evanescent beauties and graces, though to give an energy to the\nsentiment something more solid must deepen their impression and set\nthe imagination to work, to make the most fair-- the first good.\n\nCommon passions are excited by common qualities.  Men look for\nbeauty and the simper of good humoured docility:  women are\ncaptivated by easy manners: a gentleman-like man seldom fails to\nplease them, and their thirsty ears eagerly drink the insinuating\nnothings of politeness, whilst they turn from the unintelligible\nsounds of the charmer--reason, charm he never so wisely.  With\nrespect to superficial accomplishments, the rake certainly has the\nadvantage; and of these, females can form an opinion, for it is\ntheir own ground.  Rendered gay and giddy by the whole tenor of\ntheir lives, the very aspect of wisdom, or the severe graces of\nvirtue must have a lugubrious appearance to them; and produce a\nkind of restraint from which they and love, sportive child,\nnaturally revolt.  Without taste, excepting of the lighter kind,\nfor taste is the offspring of judgment, how can they discover, that\ntrue beauty and grace must arise from the play of the mind? and how\ncan they be expected to relish in a lover what they do not, or very\nimperfectly, possess themselves?  The sympathy that unites hearts,\nand invites to confidence, in them is so very faint, that it cannot\ntake fire, and thus mount to passion.  No, I repeat it, the love\ncherished by such minds, must have grosser fuel!\n\nThe inference is obvious; till women are led to exercise their\nunderstandings, they should not be satirized for their attachment\nto rakes; nor even for being rakes at heart, when it appears to be\nthe inevitable consequence of their education.  They who live to\nplease must find their enjoyments, their happiness, in pleasure!\nIt is a trite, yet true remark, that we never do any thing well,\nunless we love it for its own sake.\n\nSupposing, however, for a moment, that women were, in some future\nrevolution of time, to become, what I sincerely wish them to be,\neven love would acquire more serious dignity, and be purified in\nits own fires; and virtue giving true delicacy to their affections,\nthey would turn with disgust from a rake.  Reasoning then, as well\nas feeling, the only province of woman, at present, they might\neasily guard against exterior graces, and quickly learn to despise\nthe sensibility that had been excited and hackneyed in the ways of\nwomen, whose trade was vice; and allurement's wanton airs.  They\nwould recollect that the flame, (one must use appropriate\nexpressions,) which they wished to light up, had been exhausted by\nlust, and that the sated appetite, losing all relish for pure and\nsimple pleasures, could only be roused by licentious arts of\nvariety.  What satisfaction could a woman of delicacy promise\nherself in a union with such a man, when the very artlessness of\nher affection might appear insipid?  Thus does Dryden describe the\nsituation:\n\n\"Where love is duty on the female side,\nOn theirs mere sensual gust, and sought with surly pride.\"\n\nBut one grand truth women have yet to learn, though much it imports\nthem to act accordingly.  In the choice of a husband they should\nnot be led astray by the qualities of a lover--for a lover the\nhusband, even supposing him to be wise and virtuous, cannot long\nremain.\n\nWere women more rationally educated, could they take a more\ncomprehensive view of things, they would be contented to love but\nonce in their lives; and after marriage calmly let passion subside\ninto friendship--into that tender intimacy, which is the best\nrefuge from care; yet is built on such pure, still affections, that\nidle jealousies would not be allowed to disturb the discharge of\nthe sober duties of life, nor to engross the thoughts that ought to\nbe otherwise employed.  This is a state in which many men live; but\nfew, very few women.  And the difference may easily be accounted\nfor, without recurring to a sexual character.  Men, for whom we are\ntold women are made, have too much occupied the thoughts of women;\nand this association has so entangled love, with all their motives\nof action; and, to harp a little on an old string, having been\nsolely employed either to prepare themselves to excite love, or\nactually putting their lessons in practice, they cannot live\nwithout love.  But, when a sense of duty, or fear of shame, obliges\nthem to restrain this pampered desire of pleasing beyond certain\nlengths, too far for delicacy, it is true, though far from\ncriminality, they obstinately determine to love, I speak of their\npassion, their husbands to the end of the chapter--and then acting\nthe part which they foolishly exacted from their lovers, they\nbecome abject wooers, and fond slaves.\n\nMen of wit and fancy are often rakes; and fancy is the food of\nlove.  Such men will inspire passion.  Half the sex, in its present\ninfantine state, would pine for a Lovelace; a man so witty, so\ngraceful, and so valiant; and can they DESERVE blame for acting\naccording to principles so constantly inculcated?  They want a\nlover and protector: and behold him kneeling before them--bravery\nprostrate to beauty!  The virtues of a husband are thus thrown by\nlove into the background, and gay hopes, or lively emotions, banish\nreflection till the day of reckoning comes; and come it surely\nwill, to turn the sprightly lover into a surly suspicious tyrant,\nwho contemptuously insults the very weakness he fostered.  Or,\nsupposing the rake reformed, he cannot quickly get rid of old\nhabits.  When a man of abilities is first carried away by his\npassions, it is necessary that sentiment and taste varnish the\nenormities of vice, and give a zest to brutal indulgences: but when\nthe gloss of novelty is worn off, and pleasure palls upon the\nsense, lasciviousness becomes barefaced, and enjoyment only the\ndesperate effort of weakness flying from reflection as from a\nlegion of devils.  Oh! virtue, thou art not an empty name!  All\nthat life can give-- thou givest!\n\nIf much comfort cannot be expected from the friendship of a\nreformed rake of superior abilities, what is the consequence when\nhe lacketh sense, as well as principles?  Verily misery in its most\nhideous shape.  When the habits of weak people are consolidated by\ntime, a reformation is barely possible; and actually makes the\nbeings miserable who have not sufficient mind to be amused by\ninnocent pleasure; like the tradesman who retires from the hurry of\nbusiness, nature presents to them only a universal blank; and the\nrestless thoughts prey on the damped spirits.  Their reformation as\nwell as his retirement actually makes them wretched, because it\ndeprives them of all employment, by quenching the hopes and fears\nthat set in motion their sluggish minds.\n\nIf such be the force of habit; if such be the bondage of folly, how\ncarefully ought we to guard the mind from storing up vicious\nassociations; and equally careful should we be to cultivate the\nunderstanding, to save the poor wight from the weak dependent state\nof even harmless ignorance.  For it is the right use of reason\nalone which makes us independent of every thing--excepting the\nunclouded Reason--\"Whose service is perfect freedom.\"\n\n\nCHAPTER 7.\n\nMODESTY COMPREHENSIVELY CONSIDERED AND NOT AS A SEXUAL VIRTUE.\n\nModesty!  Sacred offspring of sensibility and reason! true delicacy\nof mind! may I unblamed presume to investigate thy nature, and\ntrace to its covert the mild charm, that mellowing each harsh\nfeature of a character, renders what would otherwise only inspire\ncold admiration--lovely!  Thou that smoothest the wrinkles of\nwisdom, and softenest the tone of the more sublime virtues till\nthey all melt into humanity! thou that spreadest the ethereal cloud\nthat surrounding love heightens every beauty, it half shades,\nbreathing those coy sweets that steal into the heart, and charm the\nsenses--modulate for me the language of persuasive reason, till I\nrouse my sex from the flowery bed, on which they supinely sleep\nlife away!\n\nIn speaking of the association of our ideas, I have noticed two\ndistinct modes; and in defining modesty, it appears to me equally\nproper to discriminate that purity of mind, which is the effect of\nchastity, from a simplicity of character that leads us to form a\njust opinion of ourselves, equally distant from vanity or\npresumption, though by no means incompatible with a lofty\nconsciousness of our own dignity.  Modesty in the latter\nsignification of the term, is that soberness of mind which teaches\na man not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think,\nand should be distinguished from humility, because humility is a\nkind of self-abasement.  A modest man often conceives a great plan,\nand tenaciously adheres to it, conscious of his own strength, till\nsuccess gives it a sanction that determines its character.  Milton\nwas not arrogant when he suffered a suggestion of judgment to\nescape him that proved a prophesy; nor was General Washington when\nhe accepted of the command of the American forces.  The latter has\nalways been characterized as a modest man; but had he been merely\nhumble, he would probably have shrunk back irresolute, afraid of\ntrusting to himself the direction of an enterprise on which so much\ndepended.\n\nA modest man is steady, an humble man timid, and a vain one\npresumptuous; this is the judgment, which the observation of many\ncharacters, has led me to form.  Jesus Christ was modest, Moses was\nhumble, and Peter vain.\n\nThus discriminating modesty from humility in one case, I do not\nmean to confound it with bashfulness in the other.  Bashfulness, in\nfact, is so distinct from modesty, that the most bashful lass, or\nraw country lout, often becomes the most impudent; for their\nbashfulness being merely the instinctive timidity of ignorance,\ncustom soon changes it into assurance.*\n\n(*Footnote.  \"Such is the country-maiden's fright,\nWhen first a red-coat is in sight;\nBehind the door she hides her face,\nNext time at distance eyes the lace:\nShe now can all his terrors stand,\nNor from his squeeze withdraws her hand,\nShe plays familiar in his arms,\nAnd every soldier hath his charms;\n>From tent to tent she spreads her flame;\nFor custom conquers fear and shame.\")\n\nThe shameless behaviour of the prostitutes who infest the streets\nof London, raising alternate emotions of pity and disgust, may\nserve to illustrate this remark.  They trample on virgin\nbashfulness with a sort of bravado, and glorying in their shame,\nbecome more audaciously lewd than men, however depraved, to whom\nthe sexual quality has not been gratuitously granted, ever appear\nto be.  But these poor ignorant wretches never had any modesty to\nlose, when they consigned themselves to infamy; for modesty is a\nvirtue not a quality.  No, they were only bashful, shame-faced\ninnocents; and losing their innocence, their shame-facedness was\nrudely brushed off; a virtue would have left some vestiges in the\nmind, had it been sacrificed to passion, to make us respect the\ngrand ruin.\n\nPurity of mind, or that genuine delicacy, which is the only\nvirtuous support of chastity, is near a-kin to that refinement of\nhumanity, which never resides in any but cultivated minds.  It is\nsomething nobler than innocence; it is the delicacy of reflection,\nand not the coyness of ignorance.  The reserve of reason, which\nlike habitual cleanliness, is seldom seen in any great degree,\nunless the soul is active, may easily be distinguished from rustic\nshyness or wanton skittishness; and so far from being incompatible\nwith knowledge, it is its fairest fruit.  What a gross idea of\nmodesty had the writer of the following remark!  \"The lady who\nasked the question whether women may be instructed in the modern\nsystem of botany, consistently with female delicacy?\" was accused\nof ridiculous prudery:  nevertheless, if she had proposed the\nquestion to me, I should certainly have answered--They cannot.\"\nThus is the fair book of knowledge to be shut with an everlasting\nseal!  On reading similar passages I have reverentially lifted up\nmy eyes and heart to Him who liveth for ever and ever, and said, O\nmy Father, hast Thou by the very constitution of her nature forbid\nThy child to seek Thee in the fair forms of truth?  And, can her\nsoul be sullied by the knowledge that awfully calls her to Thee?\n\nI have then philosophically pursued these reflections till I\ninferred, that those women who have most improved their reason must\nhave the most modesty --though a dignified sedateness of deportment\nmay have succeeded the playful, bewitching bashfulness of youth.*\n\n(*Footnote.  Modesty, is the graceful calm virtue of maturity;\nbashfulness, the charm of vivacious youth.)\n\nAnd thus have I argued.  To render chastity the virtue from which\nunsophisticated modesty will naturally flow, the attention should\nbe called away from employments, which only exercise the\nsensibility; and the heart made to beat time to humanity, rather\nthan to throb with love.  The woman who has dedicated a\nconsiderable portion of her time to pursuits purely intellectual,\nand whose affections have been exercised by humane plans of\nusefulness, must have more purity of mind, as a natural\nconsequence, than the ignorant beings whose time and thoughts have\nbeen occupied by gay pleasures or schemes to conquer hearts.  The\nregulation of the behaviour is not modesty, though those who study\nrules of decorum, are, in general termed modest women.  Make the\nheart clean, let it expand and feel for all that is human, instead\nof being narrowed by selfish passions; and let the mind frequently\ncontemplate subjects that exercise the understanding, without\nheating the imagination, and artless modesty will give the\nfinishing touches to the picture.\n\nShe who can discern the dawn of immortality, in the streaks that\nshoot athwart the misty night of ignorance, promising a clearer\nday, will respect, as a sacred temple, the body that enshrines such\nan improvable soul.  True love, likewise, spreads this kind of\nmysterious sanctity round the beloved object, making the lover most\nmodest when in her presence.  So reserved is affection, that,\nreceiving or returning personal endearments, it wishes, not only to\nshun the human eye, as a kind of profanation; but to diffuse an\nencircling cloudy obscurity to shut out even the saucy sparkling\nsunbeams.  Yet, that affection does not deserve the epithet of\nchaste which does not receive a sublime gloom of tender melancholy,\nthat allows the mind for a moment to stand still and enjoy the\npresent satisfaction, when a consciousness of the Divine presence\nis felt--for this must ever be the food of joy!\n\nAs I have always been fond of tracing to its source in nature any\nprevailing custom, I have frequently thought that it was a\nsentiment of affection for whatever had touched the person of an\nabsent or lost friend, which gave birth to that respect for relics,\nso much abused by selfish priests.  Devotion, or love, may be\nallowed to hallow the garments as well as the person; for the lover\nmust want fancy, who has not a sort of sacred respect for the glove\nor slipper of his mistress.  He could not confound them with vulgar\nthings of the same kind.\n\nThis fine sentiment, perhaps, would not bear to be analyzed by the\nexperimental philosopher--but of such stuff is human rapture made\nup!-- A shadowy phantom glides before us, obscuring every other\nobject; yet when the soft cloud is grasped, the form melts into\ncommon air, leaving a solitary void, or sweet perfume, stolen from\nthe violet, that memory long holds dear.  But, I have tripped\nunawares on fairy ground, feeling the balmy gale of spring stealing\non me, though November frowns.\n\nAs a sex, women are more chaste than men, and as modesty is the\neffect of chastity, they may deserve to have this virtue ascribed\nto them in rather an appropriated sense; yet, I must be allowed to\nadd an hesitating if:-- for I doubt, whether chastity will produce\nmodesty, though it may propriety of conduct, when it is merely a\nrespect for the opinion of the world, and when coquetry and the\nlovelorn tales of novelists employ the thoughts.  Nay, from\nexperience, and reason, I should be lead to expect to meet with\nmore modesty amongst men than women, simply because men exercise\ntheir understandings more than women.\n\nBut, with respect to propriety of behaviour, excepting one class of\nfemales, women have evidently the advantage.  What can be more\ndisgusting than that impudent dross of gallantry, thought so manly,\nwhich makes many men stare insultingly at every female they meet?\nIs this respect for the sex?  This loose behaviour shows such\nhabitual depravity, such weakness of mind, that it is vain to\nexpect much public or private virtue, till both men and women grow\nmore modest--till men, curbing a sensual fondness for the sex, or\nan affectation of manly assurance, more properly speaking,\nimpudence, treat each other with respect--unless appetite or\npassion gives the tone, peculiar to it, to their behaviour.  I mean\neven personal respect--the modest respect of humanity, and\nfellow-feeling; not the libidinous mockery of gallantry, nor the\ninsolent condescension of protectorship.\n\nTo carry the observation still further, modesty must heartily\ndisclaim, and refuse to dwell with that debauchery of mind, which\nleads a man coolly to bring forward, without a blush, indecent\nallusions, or obscene witticisms, in the presence of a fellow\ncreature; women are now out of the question, for then it is\nbrutality.  Respect for man, as man is the foundation of every\nnoble sentiment.  How much more modest is the libertine who obeys\nthe call of appetite or fancy, than the lewd joker who sets the\ntable in a roar.\n\nThis is one of the many instances in which the sexual distinction\nrespecting modesty has proved fatal to virtue and happiness.  It\nis, however, carried still further, and woman, weak woman! made by\nher education the slave of sensibility, is required, on the most\ntrying occasions, to resist that sensibility.  \"Can any thing,\"\nsays Knox, be more absurd than keeping women in a state of\nignorance, and yet so vehemently to insist on their resisting\ntemptation?  Thus when virtue or honour make it proper to check a\npassion, the burden is thrown on the weaker shoulders, contrary to\nreason and true modesty, which, at least, should render the\nself-denial mutual, to say nothing of the generosity of bravery,\nsupposed to be a manly virtue.\n\nIn the same strain runs Rousseau's and Dr. Gregory's advice\nrespecting modesty, strangely miscalled! for they both desire a\nwife to leave it in doubt, whether sensibility or weakness led her\nto her husband's arms.  The woman is immodest who can let the\nshadow of such a doubt remain on her husband's mind a moment.\n\nBut to state the subject in a different light.  The want of\nmodesty, which I principally deplore as subversive of morality,\narises from the state of warfare so strenuously supported by\nvoluptuous men as the very essence of modesty, though, in fact, its\nbane; because it is a refinement on sensual desire, that men fall\ninto who have not sufficient virtue to relish the innocent\npleasures of love.  A man of delicacy carries his notions of\nmodesty still further, for neither weakness nor sensibility will\ngratify him--he looks for affection.\n\nAgain; men boast of their triumphs over women, what do they boast\nof? Truly the creature of sensibility was surprised by her\nsensibility into folly--into vice;* and the dreadful reckoning\nfalls heavily on her own weak head, when reason wakes.  For where\nart thou to find comfort, forlorn and disconsolate one?  He who\nought to have directed thy reason, and supported thy weakness, has\nbetrayed thee!  In a dream of passion thou consentedst to wander\nthrough flowery lawns, and heedlessly stepping over the precipice\nto which thy guide, instead of guarding, lured thee, thou startest\nfrom thy dream only to face a sneering, frowning world, and to find\nthyself alone in a waste, for he that triumphed in thy weakness is\nnow pursuing new conquests; but for thee--there is no redemption on\nthis side the grave!  And what resource hast thou in an enervated\nmind to raise a sinking heart?\n\n(*Footnote.  The poor moth fluttering round a candle, burns its\nwings.)\n\nBut, if the sexes be really to live in a state of warfare, if\nnature has pointed it out, let men act nobly, or let pride whisper\nto them, that the victory is mean when they merely vanquish\nsensibility.  The real conquest is that over affection not taken by\nsurprise--when, like Heloisa, a woman gives up all the world,\ndeliberately, for love.  I do not now consider the wisdom or virtue\nof such a sacrifice, I only contend that it was a sacrifice to\naffection, and not merely to sensibility, though she had her share.\nAnd I must be allowed to call her a modest woman, before I dismiss\nthis part of the subject, by saying, that till men are more chaste,\nwomen will be immodest.  Where, indeed, could modest women find\nhusbands from whom they would not continually turn with disgust?\nModesty must be equally cultivated by both sexes, or it will ever\nremain a sickly hot-house plant, whilst the affectation of it, the\nfig leaf borrowed by wantonness, may give a zest to voluptuous\nenjoyments.)\n\nMen will probably still insist that woman ought to have more\nmodesty than man; but it is not dispassionate reasoners who will\nmost earnestly oppose my opinion.  No, they are the men of fancy,\nthe favourites of the sex, who outwardly respect, and inwardly\ndespise the weak creatures whom they thus sport with.  They cannot\nsubmit to resign the highest sensual gratification, nor even to\nrelish the epicurism of virtue--self-denial.\n\nTo take another view of the subject, confining my remarks to women.\n\nThe ridiculous falsities which are told to children, from mistaken\nnotions of modesty, tend very early to inflame their imaginations\nand set their little minds to work, respecting subjects, which\nnature never intended they should think of, till the body arrived\nat some degree of maturity; then the passions naturally begin to\ntake place of the senses, as instruments to unfold the\nunderstanding, and form the moral character.\n\nIn nurseries, and boarding schools, I fear, girls are first\nspoiled; particularly in the latter.  A number of girls sleep in\nthe same room, and wash together.  And, though I should be sorry to\ncontaminate an innocent creature's mind by instilling false\ndelicacy, or those indecent prudish notions, which early cautions\nrespecting the other sex naturally engender, I should be very\nanxious to prevent their acquiring indelicate, or immodest habits;\nand as many girls have learned very indelicate tricks, from\nignorant servants, the mixing them thus indiscriminately together,\nis very improper.\n\nTo say the truth, women are, in general, too familiar with each\nother, which leads to that gross degree of familiarity that so\nfrequently renders the marriage state unhappy.  Why in the name of\ndecency are sisters, female intimates, or ladies and their waiting\nwomen, to be so grossly familiar as to forget the respect which one\nhuman creature owes to another?  That squeamish delicacy which\nshrinks from the most disgusting offices when affection or humanity\nlead us to watch at a sick pillow, is despicable.  But, why women\nin health should be more familiar with each other than men are,\nwhen they boast of their superiour delicacy, is a solecism in\nmanners which I could never solve.\n\nIn order to preserve health and beauty, I should earnestly\nrecommend frequent ablutions, to dignify my advice that it may not\noffend the fastidious ear; and, by example, girls ought to be\ntaught to wash and dress alone, without any distinction of rank;\nand if custom should make them require some little assistance, let\nthem not require it till that part of the business is over which\nought never to be done before a fellow-creature; because it is an\ninsult to the majesty of human nature.  Not on the score of\nmodesty, but decency; for the care which some modest women take,\nmaking at the same time a display of that care, not to let their\nlegs be seen, is as childish as immodest.*\n\n(*Footnote.  I remember to have met with a sentence, in a book of\neducation that made me smile.  \"It would be needless to caution you\nagainst putting your hand, by chance, under your neck-handkerchief;\nfor a modest woman never did so!\")\n\nI could proceed still further, till I animadverted on some still\nmore indelicate customs, which men never fall into.  Secrets are\ntold--where silence ought to reign; and that regard to cleanliness,\nwhich some religious sects have, perhaps, carried too far,\nespecially the Essenes, amongst the Jews, by making that an insult\nto God which is only an insult to humanity, is violated in a brutal\nmanner.  How can DELICATE women obtrude on notice that part of the\nanimal economy, which is so very disgusting?  And is it not very\nrational to conclude, that the women who have not been taught to\nrespect the human nature of their own sex, in these particulars,\nwill not long respect the mere difference of sex, in their\nhusbands?  After their maidenish bashfulness is once lost, I, in\nfact, have generally observed, that women fall into old habits; and\ntreat their husbands as they did their sisters or female\nacquaintance.\n\nBesides, women from necessity, because their minds are not\ncultivated, have recourse very often, to what I familiarly term\nbodily wit; and their intimacies are of the same kind.  In short,\nwith respect to both mind and body, they are too intimate.  That\ndecent personal reserve, which is the foundation of dignity of\ncharacter, must be kept up between women, or their minds will never\ngain strength or modesty.\n\nOn this account also, I object to many females being shut up\ntogether in nurseries, schools, or convents.  I cannot recollect\nwithout indignation, the jokes and hoiden tricks, which knots of\nyoung women indulged themselves in, when in my youth accident threw\nme, an awkward rustic, in their way.  They were almost on a par\nwith the double meanings, which shake the convivial table when the\nglass has circulated freely.  But it is vain to attempt to keep the\nheart pure, unless the head is furnished with ideas, and set to\nwork to compare them, in order, to acquire judgment, by\ngeneralizing simple ones; and modesty by making the understanding\ndamp the sensibility.\n\nIt may be thought that I lay too great a stress on personal\nreserve; but it is ever the hand-maid of modesty.  So that were I\nto name the graces that ought to adorn beauty, I should instantly\nexclaim, cleanliness, neatness, and personal reserve.  It is\nobvious, I suppose, that the reserve I mean, has nothing sexual in\nit, and that I think it EQUALLY necessary in both sexes.  So\nnecessary indeed, is that reserve and cleanliness which indolent\nwomen too often neglect, that I will venture to affirm, that when\ntwo or three women live in the same house, the one will be most\nrespected by the male part of the family, who reside with them,\nleaving love entirely out of the question, who pays this kind of\nhabitual respect to her person.\n\nWhen domestic friends meet in a morning, there will naturally\nprevail an affectionate seriousness, especially, if each look\nforward to the discharge of daily duties; and it may be reckoned\nfanciful, but this sentiment has frequently risen spontaneously in\nmy mind.  I have been pleased after breathing the sweet bracing\nmorning air, to see the same kind of freshness in the countenances\nI particularly loved; I was glad to see them braced, as it were,\nfor the day, and ready to run their course with the sun.  The\ngreetings of affection in the morning are by these means more\nrespectful, than the familiar tenderness which frequently prolongs\nthe evening talk.  Nay, I have often felt hurt, not to say\ndisgusted, when a friend has appeared, whom I parted with full\ndressed the evening before, with her clothes huddled on, because\nshe chose to indulge herself in bed till the last moment.\n\nDomestic affection can only be kept alive by these neglected\nattentions; yet if men and women took half as much pains to dress\nhabitually neat, as they do to ornament, or rather to disfigure\ntheir persons, much would be done towards the attainment of purity\nof mind.  But women only dress to gratify men of gallantry; for the\nlover is always best pleased with the simple garb that sits close\nto the shape.  There is an impertinence in ornaments that rebuffs\naffection; because love always clings round the idea of home.\n\nAs a sex, women are habitually indolent; and every thing tends to\nmake them so.  I do not forget the starts of activity which\nsensibility produces; but as these flights of feeling only increase\nthe evil, they are not to be confounded with the slow, orderly walk\nof reason.  So great, in reality, is their mental and bodily\nindolence, that till their body be strengthened and their\nunderstanding enlarged by active exertions, there is little reason\nto expect that modesty will take place of bashfulness.  They may\nfind it prudent to assume its semblance; but the fair veil will\nonly be worn on gala days.\n\nPerhaps there is not a virtue that mixes so kindly with every other\nas modesty.  It is the pale moon-beam that renders more interesting\nevery virtue it softens, giving mild grandeur to the contracted\nhorizon.  Nothing can be more beautiful than the poetical fiction,\nwhich makes Diana with her silver crescent, the goddess of\nchastity.  I have sometimes thought, that wandering with sedate\nstep in some lonely recess, a modest dame of antiquity must have\nfelt a glow of conscious dignity, when, after contemplating the\nsoft shadowy landscape, she has invited with placid fervour the\nmild reflection of her sister's beams to turn to her chaste bosom.\n\nA Christian has still nobler motives to incite her to preserve her\nchastity and acquire modesty, for her body has been called the\nTemple of the living God; of that God who requires more than\nmodesty of mien.  His eye searcheth the heart; and let her\nremember, that if she hopeth to find favour in the sight of purity\nitself, her chastity must be founded on modesty, and not on worldly\nprudence; or verily a good reputation will be her only reward; for\nthat awful intercourse, that sacred communion, which virtue\nestablishes between man and his Maker, must give rise to the wish\nof being pure as he is pure!\n\nAfter the foregoing remarks, it is almost superfluous to add, that\nI consider all those feminine airs of maturity, which succeed\nbashfulness, to which truth is sacrificed, to secure the heart of a\nhusband, or rather to force him to be still a lover when nature\nwould, had she not been interrupted in her operations, have made\nlove give place to friendship, as immodest.  The tenderness which a\nman will feel for the mother of his children is an excellent\nsubstitute for the ardour of unsatisfied passion; but to prolong\nthat ardour it is indelicate, not to say immodest, for women to\nfeign an unnatural coldness of constitution.  Women as well as men\nought to have the common appetites and passions of their nature,\nthey are only brutal when unchecked by reason:  but the obligation\nto check them is the duty of mankind, not a sexual duty.  Nature,\nin these respects, may safely be left to herself; let women only\nacquire knowledge and humanity, and love will teach them modesty.\nThere is no need of falsehoods, disgusting as futile, for studied\nrules of behaviour only impose on shallow observers; a man of sense\nsoon sees through, and despises the affectation.\n\nThe behaviour of young people, to each other, as men and women, is\nthe last thing that should be thought of in education.  In fact,\nbehaviour in most circumstances is now so much thought of, that\nsimplicity of character is rarely to be seen;  yet, if men were\nonly anxious to cultivate each virtue, and let it take root firmly\nin the mind, the grace resulting from it, its natural exteriour\nmark, would soon strip affectation of its flaunting plumes;\nbecause, fallacious as unstable, is the conduct that is not founded\nupon truth!\n\n(Footnote.  The behaviour of many newly married women has often\ndisgusted me.  They seem anxious never to let their husbands forget\nthe privilege of marriage, and to find no pleasure in his society\nunless he is acting the lover.  Short, indeed, must be the reign of\nlove, when the flame is thus constantly blown up, without its\nreceiving any solid fuel.)\n\nWould ye, O my sisters, really possess modesty, ye must remember\nthat the possession of virtue, of any denomination, is incompatible\nwith ignorance and vanity! ye must acquire that soberness of mind,\nwhich the exercise of duties, and the pursuit of knowledge, alone\ninspire, or ye will still remain in a doubtful dependent situation,\nand only be loved whilst ye are fair! the downcast eye, the rosy\nblush, the retiring grace, are all proper in their season; but\nmodesty, being the child of reason, cannot long exist with the\nsensibility that is not tempered by reflection.  Besides, when\nlove, even innocent love, is the whole employ of your lives, your\nhearts will be too soft to afford modesty that tranquil retreat,\nwhere she delights to dwell, in close union with humanity.\n\n\nCHAPTER 8.\n\nMORALITY UNDERMINED BY SEXUAL NOTIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF A GOOD\nREPUTATION.\n\nIt has long since occurred to me, that advice respecting behaviour,\nand all the various modes of preserving a good reputation, which\nhave been so strenuously inculcated on the female world, were\nspecious poisons, that incrusting morality eat away the substance.\nAnd, that this measuring of shadows produced a false calculation,\nbecause their length depends so much on the height of the sun, and\nother adventitious circumstances.\n\n>From whence arises the easy fallacious behaviour of a courtier?\n>From this situation, undoubtedly:  for standing in need of\ndependents, he is obliged to learn the art of denying without\ngiving offence, and, of evasively feeding hope with the chameleon's\nfood;  thus does politeness sport with truth, and eating away the\nsincerity and humanity natural to man, produce the fine gentleman.\n\nWomen in the same way acquire, from a supposed necessity, an\nequally artificial mode of behaviour.  Yet truth is not with\nimpunity to be sported with, for the practised dissembler, at last,\nbecomes the dupe of his own arts, loses that sagacity which has\nbeen justly termed common sense; namely, a quick perception of\ncommon truths:  which are constantly received as such by the\nunsophisticated mind, though it might not have had sufficient\nenergy to discover them itself, when obscured by local prejudices.\nThe greater number of people take their opinions on trust, to avoid\nthe trouble of exercising their own minds, and these indolent\nbeings naturally adhere to the letter, rather than the spirit of a\nlaw, divine or human.  \"Women,\" says some author, I cannot\nrecollect who, \"mind not what only heaven sees.\"  Why, indeed\nshould they? it is the eye of man that they have been taught to\ndread--and if they can lull their Argus to sleep, they seldom think\nof heaven or themselves, because their reputation is safe; and it\nis reputation not chastity and all its fair train, that they are\nemployed to keep free from spot, not as a virtue, but to preserve\ntheir station in the world.\n\nTo prove the truth of this remark, I need only advert to the\nintrigues of married women, particularly in high life, and in\ncountries where women are suitably married, according to their\nrespective ranks by their parents.  If an innocent girl become a\nprey to love, she is degraded forever, though her mind was not\npolluted by the arts which married women, under the convenient\ncloak of marriage, practise; nor has she violated any duty--but the\nduty of respecting herself.  The married woman, on the contrary,\nbreaks a most sacred engagement, and becomes a cruel mother when\nshe is a false and faithless wife.  If her husband has still an\naffection for her, the arts which she must practise to deceive him,\nwill render her the most contemptible of human beings; and at any\nrate, the contrivances necessary to preserve appearances, will keep\nher mind in that childish or vicious tumult which destroys all its\nenergy.  Besides, in time, like those people who habitually take\ncordials to raise their spirits, she will want an intrigue to give\nlife to her thoughts, having lost all relish for pleasures that are\nnot highly seasoned by hope or fear.\n\nSometimes married women act still more audaciously; I will mention\nan instance.\n\nA woman of quality, notorious for her gallantries, though as she\nstill lived with her husband, nobody chose to place her in the\nclass where she ought to have been placed, made a point of treating\nwith the most insulting contempt a poor timid creature, abashed by\na sense of her former weakness, whom a neighbouring gentleman had\nseduced and afterwards married.  This woman had actually confounded\nvirtue with reputation; and, I do believe, valued herself on the\npropriety of her behaviour before marriage, though when once\nsettled, to the satisfaction of her family, she and her lord were\nequally faithless--so that the half alive heir to an immense estate\ncame from heaven knows where!\n\nTo view this subject in another light.\n\nI have known a number of women who, if they did not love their\nhusbands, loved nobody else, giving themselves entirely up to\nvanity and dissipation, neglecting every domestic duty; nay, even\nsquandering away all the money which should have been saved for\ntheir helpless younger children, yet have plumed themselves on\ntheir unsullied reputation, as if the whole compass of their duty\nas wives and mothers was only to preserve it.  Whilst other\nindolent women, neglecting every personal duty, have thought that\nthey deserved their husband's affection, because they acted in this\nrespect with propriety.\n\nWeak minds are always fond of resting in the ceremonials of duty,\nbut morality offers much simpler motives; and it were to be wished\nthat superficial moralists had said less respecting behaviour, and\noutward observances, for unless virtue, of any kind, is built on\nknowledge, it will only produce a kind of insipid decency.  Respect\nfor the opinion of the world, has, however, been termed the\nprincipal duty of woman in the most express words, for Rousseau\ndeclares, \"that reputation is no less indispensable than chastity.\"\n\"A man,\" adds he, \"secure in his own good conduct, depends only on\nhimself, and may brave the public opinion; but a woman, in behaving\nwell, performs but half her duty; as what is thought of her, is as\nimportant to her as what she really is.  It follows hence, that the\nsystem of a woman's education should, in this respect, be directly\ncontrary to that of ours.  Opinion is the grave of virtue among the\nmen; but its throne among women.\"  It is strictly logical to infer,\nthat the virtue that rests on opinion is merely worldly, and that\nit is the virtue of a being to whom reason has been denied.  But,\neven with respect to the opinion of the world, I am convinced, that\nthis class of reasoners are mistaken.\n\nThis regard for reputation, independent of its being one of the\nnatural rewards of virtue, however, took its rise from a cause that\nI have already deplored as the grand source of female depravity,\nthe impossibility of regaining respectability by a return to\nvirtue, though men preserve theirs during the indulgence of vice.\nIt was natural for women then to endeavour to preserve what once\nlost--was lost for ever, till this care swallowing up every other\ncare, reputation for chastity, became the one thing needful to the\nsex.  But vain is the scrupulosity of ignorance, for neither\nreligion nor virtue, when they reside in the heart, require such a\npuerile attention to mere ceremonies, because the behaviour must,\nupon the whole be proper, when the motive is pure.\n\nTo support my opinion I can produce very respectable authority; and\nthe authority of a cool reasoner ought to have weight to enforce\nconsideration, though not to establish a sentiment.  Speaking of\nthe general laws of morality, Dr. Smith observes--\"That by some\nvery extraordinary and unlucky circumstance, a good man may come to\nbe suspected of a crime of which he was altogether incapable, and\nupon that account be most unjustly exposed for the remaining part\nof his life to the horror and aversion of mankind.  By an accident\nof this kind he may be said to lose his all, notwithstanding his\nintegrity and justice, in the same manner as a cautious man,\nnotwithstanding his utmost circumspection, may be ruined by an\nearthquake or an inundation.  Accidents of the first kind, however,\nare perhaps still more rare, and still more contrary to the common\ncourse of things than those of the second; and it still remains\ntrue, that the practice of truth, justice and humanity, is a\ncertain and almost infallible method of acquiring what those\nvirtues chiefly aim at, the confidence and love of those we live\nwith.  A person may be easily misrepresented with regard to a\nparticular action; but it is scarcely possible that he should be so\nwith regard to the general tenor of his conduct.  An innocent man\nmay be believed to have done wrong:  this, however, will rarely\nhappen.  On the contrary, the established opinion of the innocence\nof his manners will often lead us to absolve him where he has\nreally been in the fault, notwithstanding very strong\npresumptions.\"\n\nI perfectly coincide in opinion with this writer, for I verily\nbelieve, that few of either sex were ever despised for certain\nvices without deserving to be despised.  I speak not of the calumny\nof the moment, which hangs over a character, like one of the dense\nfogs of November over this metropolis, till it gradually subsides\nbefore the common light of day, I only contend, that the daily\nconduct of the majority prevails to stamp their character with the\nimpression of truth.  Quietly does the clear light, shining day\nafter day, refute the ignorant surmise, or malicious tale, which\nhas thrown dirt on a pure character.  A false light distorted, for\na short time, its shadow--reputation; but it seldom fails to become\njust when the cloud is dispersed that produced the mistake in\nvision.\n\nMany people, undoubtedly in several respects, obtain a better\nreputation than, strictly speaking, they deserve, for unremitting\nindustry will mostly reach its goal in all races.  They who only\nstrive for this paltry prize, like the Pharisees, who prayed at the\ncorners of streets, to be seen of men, verily obtain the reward\nthey seek; for the heart of man cannot be read by man!  Still the\nfair fame that is naturally reflected by good actions, when the man\nis only employed to direct his steps aright, regardless of the\nlookers-on, is in general, not only more true but more sure.\n\nThere are, it is true, trials when the good man must appeal to God\nfrom the injustice of man; and amidst the whining candour or\nhissing of envy, erect a pavilion in his own mind to retire to,\ntill the rumour be overpast; nay, the darts of undeserved censure\nmay pierce an innocent tender bosom through with many sorrows; but\nthese are all exceptions to general rules.  And it is according to\nthese common laws that human behaviour ought to be regulated.  The\neccentric orbit of the comet never influences astronomical\ncalculations respecting the invariable order established in the\nmotion of the principal bodies of the solar system.\n\nI will then venture to affirm, that after a man has arrived at\nmaturity, the general outline of his character in the world is\njust, allowing for the before mentioned exceptions to the rule.  I\ndo not say, that a prudent, worldly-wise man, with only negative\nvirtues and qualities, may not sometimes obtain a smoother\nreputation than a wiser or a better man.  So far from it, that I am\napt to conclude from experience, that where the virtue of two\npeople is nearly equal, the most negative character will be liked\nbest by the world at large, whilst the other may have more friends\nin private life.  But the hills and dales, clouds and sunshine,\nconspicuous in the virtues of great men, set off each other; and\nthough they afford envious weakness a fairer mark to shoot at, the\nreal character will still work its way to light, though bespattered\nby weak affection, or ingenious malice.*\n\n(*Footnote.  I allude to various biographical writings, but\nparticularly to Boswell's Life of Johnson.)\n\nWith respect to that anxiety to preserve a reputation hardly\nearned, which leads sagacious people to analyze it, I shall not\nmake the obvious comment; but I am afraid that morality is very\ninsidiously undermined, in the female world, by the attention being\nturned to the show instead of the substance.  A simple thing is\nthus made strangely complicated; nay, sometimes virtue and its\nshadow are set at variance.  We should never, perhaps, have heard\nof Lucretia, had she died to preserve her chastity instead of her\nreputation.  If we really deserve our own good opinion, we shall\ncommonly be respected in the world; but if we pant after higher\nimprovement and higher attainments, it is not sufficient to view\nourselves as we suppose that we are viewed by others, though this\nhas been ingeniously argued as the foundation of our moral\nsentiments.  (Smith.)  Because each bystander may have his own\nprejudices, besides the prejudices of his age or country.  We\nshould rather endeavour to view ourselves, as we suppose that Being\nviews us, who seeth each thought ripen into action, and whose\njudgment never swerves from the eternal rule of right.  Righteous\nare all his judgments--just, as merciful!\n\nThe humble mind that seeketh to find favour in His sight, and\ncalmly examines its conduct when only His presence is felt, will\nseldom form a very erroneous opinion of its own virtues.  During\nthe still hour of self-collection, the angry brow of offended\njustice will be fearfully deprecated, or the tie which draws man to\nthe Deity will be recognized in the pure sentiment of reverential\nadoration, that swells the heart without exciting any tumultuous\nemotions.  In these solemn moments man discovers the germ of those\nvices, which like the Java tree shed a pestiferous vapour\naround--death is in the shade! and he perceives them without\nabhorrence, because he feels himself drawn by some cord of love to\nall his fellow creatures, for whose follies he is anxious to find\nevery extenuation in their nature--in himself.  If I, he may thus\nargue, who exercise my own mind, and have been refined by\ntribulation, find the serpent's egg in some fold of my heart, and\ncrush it with difficulty, shall not I pity those who are stamped\nwith less vigour, or who have heedlessly nurtured the insidious\nreptile till it poisoned the vital stream it sucked?  Can I,\nconscious of my secret sins, throw off my fellow creatures, and\ncalmly see them drop into the chasm of perdition, that yawns to\nreceive them.  No! no!  The agonized heart will cry with\nsuffocating impatience--I too am a man! and have vices, hid,\nperhaps, from human eye, that bend me to the dust before God, and\nloudly tell me when all is mute, that we are formed of the same\nearth, and breathe the same element.  Humanity thus rises naturally\nout of humility, and twists the cords of love that in various\nconvolutions entangle the heart.\n\nThis sympathy extends still further, till a man well pleased\nobserves force in arguments that do not carry conviction to his own\nbosom, and he gladly places in the fairest light to himself, the\nshows of reason that have led others astray, rejoiced to find some\nreason in all the errors of man; though before convinced that he\nwho rules the day makes his sun to shine on all.  Yet, shaking\nhands thus, as it were, with corruption, one foot on earth, the\nother with bold strides mounts to heaven, and claims kindred with\nsuperiour natures.  Virtues, unobserved by men, drop their balmy\nfragrance at this cool hour, and the thirsty land, refreshed by the\npure streams of comfort that suddenly gush out, is crowned with\nsmiling verdure; this is the living green on which that eye may\nlook with complacency that is too pure to behold iniquity! But my\nspirits flag; and I must silently indulge the reverie these\nreflections lead to, unable to describe the sentiments that have\ncalmed my soul, when watching the rising sun, a soft shower\ndrizzling through the leaves of neighbouring trees, seemed to fall\non my languid, yet tranquil spirits, to cool the heart that had\nbeen heated by the passions which reason laboured to tame.\n\nThe leading principles which run through all my disquisitions,\nwould render it unnecessary to enlarge on this subject, if a\nconstant attention to keep the varnish of the character fresh, and\nin good condition, were not often inculcated as the sum total of\nfemale duty; if rules to regulate the behaviour, and to preserve\nthe reputation, did not too frequently supersede moral obligations.\nBut, with respect to reputation, the attention is confined to a\nsingle virtue--chastity.  If the honour of a woman, as it is\nabsurdly called, is safe, she may neglect every social duty; nay,\nruin her family by gaming and extravagance; yet still present a\nshameless front --for truly she is an honourable woman!\n\nMrs. Macaulay has justly observed, that \"there is but one fault\nwhich a woman of honour may not commit with impunity.\"  She then\njustly and humanely adds--This has given rise to the trite and\nfoolish observation, that the first fault against chastity in woman\nhas a radical power to deprave the character.  But no such frail\nbeings come out of the hands of nature.  The human mind is built of\nnobler materials than to be so easily corrupted; and with all their\ndisadvantages of situation and education, women seldom become\nentirely abandoned till they are thrown into a state of\ndesperation, by the venomous rancour of their own sex.\"\n\nBut, in proportion as this regard for the reputation of chastity is\nprized by women, it is despised by men:  and the two extremes are\nequally destructive to morality.\n\nMen are certainly more under the influence of their appetites than\nwomen; and their appetites are more depraved by unbridled\nindulgence, and the fastidious contrivances of satiety.  Luxury has\nintroduced a refinement in eating that destroys the constitution;\nand, a degree of gluttony which is so beastly, that a perception of\nseemliness of behaviour must be worn out before one being could eat\nimmoderately in the presence of another, and afterwards complain of\nthe oppression that his intemperance naturally produced.  Some\nwomen, particularly French women, have also lost a sense of decency\nin this respect; for they will talk very calmly of an indigestion.\nIt were to be wished, that idleness was not allowed to generate, on\nthe rank soil of wealth, those swarms of summer insects that feed\non putrefaction; we should not then be disgusted by the sight of\nsuch brutal excesses.\n\nThere is one rule relative to behaviour that, I think, ought to\nregulate every other; and it is simply to cherish such an habitual\nrespect for mankind, as may prevent us from disgusting a fellow\ncreature for the sake of a present indulgence.  The shameful\nindolence of many married women, and others a little advanced in\nlife, frequently leads them to sin against delicacy.  For, though\nconvinced that the person is the band of union between the sexes,\nyet, how often do they from sheer indolence, or to enjoy some\ntrifling indulgence, disgust?\n\nThe depravity of the appetite, which brings the sexes together, has\nhad a still more fatal effect.  Nature must ever be the standard of\ntaste, the guage of appetite--yet how grossly is nature insulted by\nthe voluptuary.  Leaving the refinements of love out of the\nquestion; nature, by making the gratification of an appetite, in\nthis respect, as well as every other, a natural and imperious law\nto preserve the species, exalts the appetite, and mixes a little\nmind and affection with a sensual gust.  The feelings of a parent\nmingling with an instinct merely animal, give it dignity; and the\nman and woman often meeting on account of the child, a mutual\ninterest and affection is excited by the exercise of a common\nsympathy.  Women then having necessarily some duty to fulfil, more\nnoble than to adorn their persons, would not contentedly be the\nslaves of casual appetite, which is now the situation of a very\nconsiderable number who are, literally speaking, standing dishes to\nwhich every glutton may have access.\n\nI may be told, that great as this enormity is, it only affects a\ndevoted part of the sex--devoted for the salvation of the rest.\nBut, false as every assertion might easily be proved, that\nrecommends the sanctioning a small evil to produce a greater good;\nthe mischief does not stop here, for the moral character, and peace\nof mind, of the chaster part of the sex, is undermined by the\nconduct of the very women to whom they allow no refuge from guilt:\nwhom they inexorably consign to the exercise of arts that lure\ntheir husbands from them, debauch their sons and force them, let\nnot modest women start, to assume, in some degree, the same\ncharacter themselves.  For I will venture to assert, that all the\ncauses of female weakness, as well as depravity, which I have\nalready enlarged on, branch out of one grand cause--want of\nchastity in men.\n\nThis intemperance, so prevalent, depraves the appetite to such a\ndegree, that a wanton stimulus is necessary to rouse it; but the\nparental design of nature is forgotten, and the mere person, and\nthat, for a moment, alone engrosses the thoughts.  So voluptuous,\nindeed, often grows the lustful prowler, that he refines on female\nsoftness.\n\nTo satisfy this genius of men, women are made systematically\nvoluptuous, and though they may not all carry their libertinism to\nthe same height, yet this heartless intercourse with the sex, which\nthey allow themselves, depraves both sexes, because the taste of\nmen is vitiated; and women, of all classes, naturally square their\nbehaviour to gratify the taste by which they obtain pleasure and\npower.  Women becoming, consequently weaker, in mind and body, than\nthey ought to be, were one of the grand ends of their being taken\ninto the account, that of bearing and nursing children, have not\nsufficient strength to discharge the first duty of a mother; and\nsacrificing to lasciviousness the parental affection, that ennobles\ninstinct, either destroy the embryo in the womb, or cast it off\nwhen born.  Nature in every thing demands respect, and those who\nviolate her laws seldom violate them with impunity.  The weak\nenervated women who particularly catch the attention of libertines,\nare unfit to be mothers, though they may conceive; so that the rich\nsensualist, who has rioted among women, spreading depravity and\nmisery, when he wishes to perpetuate his name, receives from his\nwife only an half-formed being that inherits both its father's and\nmother's weakness.\n\nContrasting the humanity of the present age with the barbarism of\nantiquity, great stress has been laid on the savage custom of\nexposing the children whom their parents could not maintain; whilst\nthe man of sensibility, who thus, perhaps, complains, by his\npromiscuous amours produces a most destructive barrenness and\ncontagious flagitiousness of manners.  Surely nature never intended\nthat women, by satisfying an appetite, should frustrate the very\npurpose for which it was implanted?\n\nI have before observed, that men ought to maintain the women whom\nthey have seduced; this would be one means of reforming female\nmanners, and stopping an abuse that has an equally fatal effect on\npopulation and morals.  Another, no less obvious, would be to turn\nthe attention of woman to the real virtue of chastity; for to\nlittle respect has that woman a claim, on the score of modesty,\nthough her reputation may be white as the driven snow, who smiles\non the libertine whilst she spurns the victims of his lawless\nappetites and their own folly.\n\nBesides, she has a taint of the same folly, pure as she esteems\nherself, when she studiously adorns her person only to be seen by\nmen, to excite respectful sighs, and all the idle homage of what is\ncalled innocent gallantry.  Did women really respect virtue for its\nown sake, they would not seek for a compensation in vanity, for the\nself-denial which they are obliged to practise to preserve their\nreputation, nor would they associate with men who set reputation at\ndefiance.\n\nThe two sexes mutually corrupt and improve each other.  This I\nbelieve to be an indisputable truth, extending it to every virtue.\nChastity, modesty, public spirit, and all the noble train of\nvirtues, on which social virtue and happiness are built, should be\nunderstood and cultivated by all mankind, or they will be\ncultivated to little effect.  And, instead of furnishing the\nvicious or idle with a pretext for violating some sacred duty, by\nterming it a sexual one, it would be wiser to show, that nature has\nnot made any difference, for that the unchaste man doubly defeats\nthe purpose of nature by rendering women barren, and destroying his\nown constitution, though he avoids the shame that pursues the crime\nin the other sex.  These are the physical consequences, the moral\nare still more alarming; for virtue is only a nominal distinction\nwhen the duties of citizens, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, and\ndirectors of families, become merely the selfish ties of\nconvenience.\n\nWhy then do philosophers look for public spirit?  Public spirit\nmust be nurtured by private virtue, or it will resemble the\nfactitious sentiment which makes women careful to preserve their\nreputation, and men their honour.  A sentiment that often exists\nunsupported by virtue, unsupported by that sublime morality which\nmakes the habitual breach of one duty a breach of the whole moral\nlaw.\n\n\nCHAPTER 9.\n\nOF THE PERNICIOUS EFFECTS WHICH ARISE FROM THE UNNATURAL\nDISTINCTIONS ESTABLISHED IN SOCIETY.\n\n>From the respect paid to property flow, as from a poisoned\nfountain, most of the evils and vices which render this world such\na dreary scene to the contemplative mind.  For it is in the most\npolished society that noisome reptiles and venomous serpents lurk\nunder the rank herbage; and there is voluptuousness pampered by the\nstill sultry air, which relaxes every good disposition before it\nripens into virtue.\n\nOne class presses on another; for all are aiming to procure respect\non account of their property:  and property, once gained, will\nprocure the respect due only to talents and virtue.  Men neglect\nthe duties incumbent on man, yet are treated like demi-gods;\nreligion is also separated from morality by a ceremonial veil, yet\nmen wonder that the world is almost, literally speaking, a den of\nsharpers or oppressors.\n\nThere is a homely proverb, which speaks a shrewd truth, that\nwhoever the devil finds idle he will employ.  And what but habitual\nidleness can hereditary wealth and titles produce?  For man is so\nconstituted that he can only attain a proper use of his faculties\nby exercising them, and will not exercise them unless necessity, of\nsome kind, first set the wheels in motion.  Virtue likewise can\nonly be acquired by the discharge of relative duties; but the\nimportance of these sacred duties will scarcely be felt by the\nbeing who is cajoled out of his humanity by the flattery of\nsycophants.  There must be more equality established in society, or\nmorality will never gain ground, and this virtuous equality will\nnot rest firmly even when founded on a rock, if one half of mankind\nare chained to its bottom by fate, for they will be continually\nundermining it through ignorance or pride.  It is vain to expect\nvirtue from women till they are, in some degree, independent of\nmen; nay, it is vain to expect that strength of natural affection,\nwhich would make them good wives and good mothers.  Whilst they are\nabsolutely dependent on their husbands, they will be cunning, mean,\nand selfish, and the men who can be gratified by the fawning\nfondness, of spaniel-like affection, have not much delicacy, for\nlove is not to be bought, in any sense of the word, its silken\nwings are instantly shrivelled up when any thing beside a return in\nkind is sought.  Yet whilst wealth enervates men; and women live,\nas it were, by their personal charms, how, can we expect them to\ndischarge those ennobling duties which equally require exertion and\nself-denial.  Hereditary property sophisticates the mind, and the\nunfortunate victims to it, if I may so express myself, swathed from\ntheir birth, seldom exert the locomotive faculty of body or mind;\nand, thus viewing every thing through one medium, and that a false\none, they are unable to discern in what true merit and happiness\nconsist.  False, indeed, must be the light when the drapery of\nsituation hides the man, and makes him stalk in masquerade,\ndragging from one scene of dissipation to another the nerveless\nlimbs that hang with stupid listlessness, and rolling round the\nvacant eye which plainly tells us that there is no mind at home.\n\nI mean, therefore, to infer, that the society is not properly\norganized which does not compel men and women to discharge their\nrespective duties, by making it the only way to acquire that\ncountenance from their fellow creatures, which every human being\nwishes some way to attain.  The respect, consequently, which is\npaid to wealth and mere personal charms, is a true north-east\nblast, that blights the tender blossoms of affection and virtue.\nNature has wisely attached affections to duties, to sweeten toil,\nand to give that vigour to the exertions of reason which only the\nheart can give.  But, the affection which is put on merely because\nit is the appropriated insignia of a certain character, when its\nduties are not fulfilled is one of the empty compliments which vice\nand folly are obliged to pay to virtue and the real nature of\nthings.\n\nTo illustrate my opinion, I need only observe, that when a woman is\nadmired for her beauty, and suffers herself to be so far\nintoxicated by the admiration she receives, as to neglect to\ndischarge the indispensable duty of a mother, she sins against\nherself by neglecting to cultivate an affection that would equally\ntend to make her useful and happy.  True happiness, I mean all the\ncontentment, and virtuous satisfaction that can be snatched in this\nimperfect state, must arise from well regulated affections; and an\naffection includes a duty.  Men are not aware of the misery they\ncause, and the vicious weakness they cherish, by only inciting\nwomen to render themselves pleasing; they do not consider, that\nthey thus make natural and artificial duties clash, by sacrificing\nthe comfort and respectability of a woman's life to voluptuous\nnotions of beauty, when in nature they all harmonize.\n\nCold would be the heart of a husband, were he not rendered\nunnatural by early debauchery, who did not feel more delight at\nseeing his child suckled by its mother, than the most artful wanton\ntricks could ever raise; yet this natural way of cementing the\nmatrimonial tie, and twisting esteem with fonder recollections,\nwealth leads women to spurn.  To preserve their beauty, and wear\nthe flowery crown of the day, that gives them a kind of right to\nreign for a short time over the sex, they neglect to stamp\nimpressions on their husbands' hearts, that would be remembered\nwith more tenderness when the snow on the head began to chill the\nbosom, than even their virgin charms.  The maternal solicitude of a\nreasonable affectionate woman is very interesting, and the\nchastened dignity with which a mother returns the caresses that she\nand her child receive from a father who has been fulfilling the\nserious duties of his station, is not only a respectable, but a\nbeautiful sight.  So singular, indeed, are my feelings, and I have\nendeavoured not to catch factitious ones, that after having been\nfatigued with the sight of insipid grandeur and the slavish\nceremonies that with cumberous pomp supplied the place of domestic\naffections, I have turned to some other scene to relieve my eye, by\nresting it on the refreshing green every where scattered by nature.\nI have then viewed with pleasure a woman nursing her children, and\ndischarging the duties of her station with, perhaps, merely a\nservant made to take off her hands the servile part of the\nhousehold business.  I have seen her prepare herself and children,\nwith only the luxury of cleanliness, to receive her husband, who\nreturning weary home in the evening, found smiling babes and a\nclean hearth.  My heart has loitered in the midst of the group, and\nhas even throbbed with sympathetic emotion, when the scraping of\nthe well known foot has raised a pleasing tumult.\n\nWhilst my benevolence has been gratified by contemplating this\nartless picture, I have thought that a couple of this description,\nequally necessary and independent of each other, because each\nfulfilled the respective duties of their station, possessed all\nthat life could give.  Raised sufficiently above abject poverty not\nto be obliged to weigh the consequence of every farthing they\nspend, and having sufficient to prevent their attending to a frigid\nsystem of economy which narrows both heart and mind.  I declare, so\nvulgar are my conceptions, that I know not what is wanted to render\nthis the happiest as well as the most respectable situation in the\nworld, but a taste for literature, to throw a little variety and\ninterest into social converse, and some superfluous money to give\nto the needy, and to buy books.  For it is not pleasant when the\nheart is opened by compassion, and the head active in arranging\nplans of usefulness, to have a prim urchin continually twitching\nback the elbow to prevent the hand from drawing out an almost empty\npurse, whispering at the same time some prudential maxim about the\npriority of justice.\n\nDestructive, however, as riches and inherited honours are to the\nhuman character, women are more debased and cramped, if possible by\nthem, than men, because men may still, in some degree, unfold their\nfaculties by becoming soldiers and statesmen.\n\nAs soldiers, I grant, they can now only gather, for the most part,\nvainglorious laurels, whilst they adjust to a hair the European\nbalance, taking especial care that no bleak northern nook or sound\nincline the beam.  But the days of true heroism are over, when a\ncitizen fought for his country like a Fabricius or a Washington,\nand then returned to his farm to let his virtuous fervour run in a\nmore placid, but not a less salutary stream.  No, our British\nheroes are oftener sent from the gaming table than from the plough;\nand their passions have been rather inflamed by hanging with dumb\nsuspense on the turn of a die, than sublimated by panting after the\nadventurous march of virtue in the historic page.\n\nThe statesman, it is true, might with more propriety quit the Faro\nBank, or card-table, to guide the helm, for he has still but to\nshuffle and trick.  The whole system of British politics, if system\nit may courteously be called, consisting in multiplying dependents\nand contriving taxes which grind the poor to pamper the rich; thus\na war, or any wild goose chace is, as the vulgar use the phrase, a\nlucky turn-up of patronage for the minister, whose chief merit is\nthe art of keeping himself in place.\n\nIt is not necessary then that he should have bowels for the poor,\nso he can secure for his family the odd trick.  Or should some show\nof respect, for what is termed with ignorant ostentation an\nEnglishman's birth-right, be expedient to bubble the gruff mastiff\nthat he has to lead by the nose, he can make an empty show, very\nsafely, by giving his single voice, and suffering his light\nsquadron to file off to the other side.  And when a question of\nhumanity is agitated, he may dip a sop in the milk of human\nkindness, to silence Cerberus, and talk of the interest which his\nheart takes in an attempt to make the earth no longer cry for\nvengeance as it sucks in its children's blood, though his cold hand\nmay at the very moment rivet their chains, by sanctioning the\nabominable traffick.  A minister is no longer a minister than while\nhe can carry a point, which he is determined to carry.  Yet it is\nnot necessary that a minister should feel like a man, when a bold\npush might shake his seat.\n\nBut, to have done with these episodical observations, let me return\nto the more specious slavery which chains the very soul of woman,\nkeeping her for ever under the bondage of ignorance.\n\nThe preposterous distinctions of rank, which render civilization a\ncurse, by dividing the world between voluptuous tyrants, and\ncunning envious dependents, corrupt, almost equally, every class of\npeople, because respectability is not attached to the discharge of\nthe relative duties of life, but to the station, and when the\nduties are not fulfilled, the affections cannot gain sufficient\nstrength to fortify the virtue of which they are the natural\nreward.  Still there are some loop-holes out of which a man may\ncreep, and dare to think and act for himself; but for a woman it is\nan herculean task, because she has difficulties peculiar to her sex\nto overcome, which require almost super-human powers.\n\nA truly benevolent legislator always endeavours to make it the\ninterest of each individual to be virtuous; and thus private virtue\nbecoming the cement of public happiness, an orderly whole is\nconsolidated by the tendency of all the parts towards a common\ncentre.  But, the private or public virtue of women is very\nproblematical; for Rousseau, and a numerous list of male writers,\ninsist that she should all her life, be subjected to a severe\nrestraint, that of propriety.  Why subject her to propriety--blind\npropriety, if she be capable of acting from a nobler spring, if she\nbe an heir of immortality?  Is sugar always to be produced by vital\nblood?  Is one half of the human species, like the poor African\nslaves, to be subject to prejudices that brutalize them, when\nprinciples would be a surer guard only to sweeten the cup of man?\nIs not this indirectly to deny women reason? for a gift is a\nmockery, if it be unfit for use.\n\nWomen are in common with men, rendered weak and luxurious by the\nrelaxing pleasures which wealth procures; but added to this, they\nare made slaves to their persons, and must render them alluring,\nthat man may lend them his reason to guide their tottering steps\naright.  Or should they be ambitious, they must govern their\ntyrants by sinister tricks, for without rights there cannot be any\nincumbent duties.  The laws respecting woman, which I mean to\ndiscuss in a future part, make an absurd unit of a man and his\nwife; and then, by the easy transition of only considering him as\nresponsible, she is reduced to a mere cypher.\n\nThe being who discharges the duties of its station, is independent;\nand, speaking of women at large, their first duty is to themselves\nas rational creatures, and the next, in point of importance, as\ncitizens, is that, which includes so many, of a mother.  The rank\nin life which dispenses with their fulfilling this duty,\nnecessarily degrades them by making them mere dolls.  Or, should\nthey turn to something more important than merely fitting drapery\nupon a smooth block, their minds are only occupied by some soft\nplatonic attachment; or, the actual management of an intrigue may\nkeep their thoughts in motion; for when they neglect domestic\nduties, they have it not in their power to take the field and march\nand counter-march like soldiers, or wrangle in the senate to keep\ntheir faculties from rusting.\n\nI know, that as a proof of the inferiority of the sex, Rousseau has\nexultingly exclaimed, How can they leave the nursery for the camp!\nAnd the camp has by some moralists been termed the school of the\nmost heroic virtues; though, I think, it would puzzle a keen\ncasuist to prove the reasonableness of the greater number of wars,\nthat have dubbed heroes.  I do not mean to consider this question\ncritically; because, having frequently viewed these freaks of\nambition as the first natural mode of civilization, when the ground\nmust be torn up, and the woods cleared by fire and sword, I do not\nchoose to call them pests; but surely the present system of war,\nhas little connection with virtue of any denomination, being rather\nthe school of FINESSE and effeminacy, than of fortitude.\n\nYet, if defensive war, the only justifiable war, in the present\nadvanced state of society, where virtue can show its face and ripen\namidst the rigours which purify the air on the mountain's top, were\nalone to be adopted as just and glorious, the true heroism of\nantiquity might again animate female bosoms.  But fair and softly,\ngentle reader, male or female, do not alarm thyself, for though I\nhave contrasted the character of a modern soldier with that of a\ncivilized woman, I am not going to advise them to turn their\ndistaff into a musket, though I sincerely wish to see the bayonet\nconverted into a pruning hook.  I only recreated an imagination,\nfatigued by contemplating the vices and follies which all proceed\nfrom a feculent stream of wealth that has muddied the pure rills of\nnatural affection, by supposing that society will some time or\nother be so constituted, that man must necessarily fulfil the\nduties of a citizen, or be despised, and that while he was employed\nin any of the departments of civil life, his wife, also an active\ncitizen, should be equally intent to manage her family, educate her\nchildren, and assist her neighbours.\n\nBut, to render her really virtuous and useful, she must not, if she\ndischarge her civil duties, want, individually, the protection of\ncivil laws; she must not be dependent on her husband's bounty for\nher subsistence during his life, or support after his death--for\nhow can a being be generous who has nothing of its own? or,\nvirtuous, who is not free?  The wife, in the present state of\nthings, who is faithful to her husband, and neither suckles nor\neducates her children, scarcely deserves the name of a wife, and\nhas no right to that of a citizen.  But take away natural rights,\nand there is of course an end of duties.\n\nWomen thus infallibly become only the wanton solace of men, when\nthey are so weak in mind and body, that they cannot exert\nthemselves, unless to pursue some frothy pleasure, or to invent\nsome frivolous fashion.  What can be a more melancholy sight to a\nthinking mind, than to look into the numerous carriages that drive\nhelter-skelter about this metropolis in a morning, full of\npale-faced creatures who are flying from themselves.  I have often\nwished, with Dr. Johnson, to place some of them in a little shop,\nwith half a dozen children looking up to their languid countenances\nfor support.  I am much mistaken, if some latent vigour would not\nsoon give health and spirit to their eyes, and some lines drawn by\nthe exercise of reason on the blank cheeks, which before were only\nundulated by dimples, might restore lost dignity to the character,\nor rather enable it to attain the true dignity of its nature.\nVirtue is not to be acquired even by speculation, much less by the\nnegative supineness that wealth naturally generates.\n\nBesides, when poverty is more disgraceful than even vice, is not\nmorality cut to the quick?  Still to avoid misconstruction, though\nI consider that women in the common walks of life are called to\nfulfil the duties of wives and mothers, by religion and reason, I\ncannot help lamenting that women of a superiour cast have not a\nroad open by which they can pursue more extensive plans of\nusefulness and independence.  I may excite laughter, by dropping an\nhint, which I mean to pursue, some future time, for I really think\nthat women ought to have representatives, instead of being\narbitrarily governed without having any direct share allowed them\nin the deliberations of government.\n\nBut, as the whole system of representation is now, in this country,\nonly a convenient handle for despotism, they need not complain, for\nthey are as well represented as a numerous class of hard working\nmechanics, who pay for the support of royality when they can\nscarcely stop their children's mouths with bread.  How are they\nrepresented, whose very sweat supports the splendid stud of an heir\napparent, or varnishes the chariot of some female favourite who\nlooks down on shame?  Taxes on the very necessaries of life, enable\nan endless tribe of idle princes and princesses to pass with stupid\npomp before a gaping crowd, who almost worship the very parade\nwhich costs them so dear.  This is mere gothic grandeur, something\nlike the barbarous, useless parade of having sentinels on horseback\nat Whitehall, which I could never view without a mixture of\ncontempt and indignation.\n\nHow strangely must the mind be sophisticated when this sort of\nstate impresses it!  But till these monuments of folly are levelled\nby virtue, similar follies will leaven the whole mass.  For the\nsame character, in some degree, will prevail in the aggregate of\nsociety:  and the refinements of luxury, or the vicious repinings\nof envious poverty, will equally banish virtue from society,\nconsidered as the characteristic of that society, or only allow it\nto appear as one of the stripes of the harlequin coat, worn by the\ncivilized man.\n\nIn the superiour ranks of life, every duty is done by deputies, as\nif duties could ever be waved, and the vain pleasures which\nconsequent idleness forces the rich to pursue, appear so enticing\nto the next rank, that the numerous scramblers for wealth sacrifice\nevery thing to tread on their heels.  The most sacred trusts are\nthen considered as sinecures, because they were procured by\ninterest, and only sought to enable a man to keep GOOD COMPANY.\nWomen, in particular, all want to be ladies.  Which is simply to\nhave nothing to do, but listlessly to go they scarcely care where,\nfor they cannot tell what.\n\nBut what have women to do in society?  I may be asked, but to\nloiter with easy grace; surely you would not condemn them all to\nsuckle fools, and chronicle small beer!  No.  Women might certainly\nstudy the art of healing, and be physicians as well as nurses.  And\nmidwifery, decency seems to allot to them, though I am afraid the\nword midwife, in our dictionaries, will soon give place to\naccoucheur, and one proof of the former delicacy of the sex be\neffaced from the language.\n\nThey might, also study politics, and settle their benevolence on\nthe broadest basis; for the reading of history will scarcely be\nmore useful than the perusal of romances, if read as mere\nbiography; if the character of the times, the political\nimprovements, arts, etc. be not observed.  In short, if it be not\nconsidered as the history of man; and not of particular men, who\nfilled a niche in the temple of fame, and dropped into the black\nrolling stream of time, that silently sweeps all before it, into\nthe shapeless void called eternity.  For shape can it be called,\n\"that shape hath none?\"\n\nBusiness of various kinds, they might likewise pursue, if they were\neducated in a more orderly manner, which might save many from\ncommon and legal prostitution.  Women would not then marry for a\nsupport, as men accept of places under government, and neglect the\nimplied duties; nor would an attempt to earn their own subsistence,\na most laudable one! sink them almost to the level of those poor\nabandoned creatures who live by prostitution.  For are not\nmilliners and mantuamakers reckoned the next class?  The few\nemployments open to women, so far from being liberal, are menial;\nand when a superior education enables them to take charge of the\neducation of children as governesses, they are not treated like the\ntutors of sons, though even clerical tutors are not always treated\nin a manner calculated to render them respectable in the eyes of\ntheir pupils, to say nothing of the private comfort of the\nindividual.  But as women educated like gentlewomen, are never\ndesigned for the humiliating situation which necessity sometimes\nforces them to fill; these situations are considered in the light\nof a degradation; and they know little of the human heart, who need\nto be told, that nothing so painfully sharpens the sensibility as\nsuch a fall in life.\n\nSome of these women might be restrained from marrying by a proper\nspirit or delicacy, and others may not have had it in their power\nto escape in this pitiful way from servitude; is not that\ngovernment then very defective, and very unmindful of the happiness\nof one half of its members, that does not provide for honest,\nindependent women, by encouraging them to fill respectable\nstations?  But in order to render their private virtue a public\nbenefit, they must have a civil existence in the state, married or\nsingle; else we shall continually see some worthy woman, whose\nsensibility has been rendered painfully acute by undeserved\ncontempt, droop like \"the lily broken down by a plough share.\"\n\nIt is a melancholy truth; yet such is the blessed effects of\ncivilization! the most respectable women are the most oppressed;\nand, unless they have understandings far superiour to the common\nrun of understandings, taking in both sexes, they must, from being\ntreated like contemptible beings, become contemptible.  How many\nwomen thus waste life away, the prey of discontent, who might have\npractised as physicians, regulated a farm, managed a shop, and\nstood erect, supported by their own industry, instead of hanging\ntheir heads surcharged with the dew of sensibility, that consumes\nthe beauty to which it at first gave lustre; nay, I doubt whether\npity and love are so near a-kin as poets feign, for I have seldom\nseen much compassion excited by the helplessness of females, unless\nthey were fair; then, perhaps, pity was the soft handmaid of love,\nor the harbinger of lust.\n\nHow much more respectable is the woman who earns her own bread by\nfulfilling any duty, than the most accomplished beauty!  beauty did\nI say? so sensible am I of the beauty of moral loveliness, or the\nharmonious propriety that attunes the passions of a well-regulated\nmind, that I blush at making the comparison; yet I sigh to think\nhow few women aim at attaining this respectability, by withdrawing\nfrom the giddy whirl of pleasure, or the indolent calm that\nstupifies the good sort of women it sucks in.\n\nProud of their weakness, however, they must always be protected,\nguarded from care, and all the rough toils that dignify the mind.\nIf this be the fiat of fate, if they will make themselves\ninsignificant and contemptible, sweetly to waste \"life away,\" let\nthem not expect to be valued when their beauty fades, for it is the\nfate of the fairest flowers to be admired and pulled to pieces by\nthe careless hand that plucked them.  In how many ways do I wish,\nfrom the purest benevolence, to impress this truth on my sex; yet I\nfear that they will not listen to a truth, that dear-bought\nexperience has brought home to many an agitated bosom, nor\nwillingly resign the privileges of rank and sex for the privileges\nof humanity, to which those have no claim who do not discharge its\nduties.\n\nThose writers are particularly useful, in my opinion, who make man\nfeel for man, independent of the station he fills, or the drapery\nof factitious sentiments.  I then would fain convince reasonable\nmen of the importance of some of my remarks and prevail on them to\nweigh dispassionately the whole tenor of my observations.  I appeal\nto their understandings; and, as a fellow-creature claim, in the\nname of my sex, some interest in their hearts.  I entreat them to\nassist to emancipate their companion to make her a help meet for\nthem!\n\nWould men but generously snap our chains, and be content with\nrational fellowship, instead of slavish obedience, they would find\nus more observant daughters, more affectionate sisters, more\nfaithful wives, more reasonable mothers--in a word, better\ncitizens.  We should then love them with true affection, because we\nshould learn to respect ourselves; and the peace of mind of a\nworthy man would not be interrupted by the idle vanity of his wife,\nnor his babes sent to nestle in a strange bosom, having never found\na home in their mother's.\n\n\nCHAPTER 10.\n\nPARENTAL AFFECTION.\n\nParental affection is, perhaps, the blindest modification of\nperverse self-love; for we have not, like the French two terms\n(L'amour propre, L'amour de soi meme) to distinguish the pursuit of\na natural and reasonable desire, from the ignorant calculations of\nweakness.  Parents often love their children in the most brutal\nmanner, and sacrifice every relative duty to promote their\nadvancement in the world.  To promote, such is the perversity of\nunprincipled prejudices, the future welfare of the very beings\nwhose present existence they imbitter by the most despotic stretch\nof power.  Power, in fact, is ever true to its vital principle, for\nin every shape it would reign without controul or inquiry.  Its\nthrone is built across a dark abyss, which no eye must dare to\nexplore, lest the baseless fabric should totter under\ninvestigation.  Obedience, unconditional obedience, is the\ncatch-word of tyrants of every description, and to render\n\"assurance doubly sure,\" one kind of despotism supports another.\nTyrants would have cause to tremble if reason were to become the\nrule of duty in any of the relations of life, for the light might\nspread till perfect day appeared.  And when it did appear, how\nwould men smile at the sight of the bugbears at which they started\nduring the night of ignorance, or the twilight of timid inquiry.\n\nParental affection, indeed, in many minds, is but a pretext to\ntyrannize where it can be done with impunity, for only good and\nwise men are content with the respect that will bear discussion.\nConvinced that they have a right to what they insist on, they do\nnot fear reason, or dread the sifting of subjects that recur to\nnatural justice:  because they firmly believe, that the more\nenlightened the human mind becomes, the deeper root will just and\nsimple principles take.  They do not rest in expedients, or grant\nthat what is metaphysically true can be practically false; but\ndisdaining the shifts of the moment they calmly wait till time,\nsanctioning innovation, silences the hiss of selfishness or envy.\n\nIf the power of reflecting on the past, and darting the keen eye of\ncontemplation into futurity, be the grand privilege of man, it must\nbe granted that some people enjoy this prerogative in a very\nlimited degree.  Every thing now appears to them wrong; and not\nable to distinguish the possible from the monstrous, they fear\nwhere no fear should find a place, running from the light of reason\nas if it were a firebrand; yet the limits of the possible have\nnever been defined to stop the sturdy innovator's hand.\n\nWoman, however, a slave in every situation to prejudice seldom\nexerts enlightened maternal affection; for she either neglects her\nchildren, or spoils them by improper indulgence.  Besides, the\naffection of some women for their children is, as I have before\ntermed it, frequently very brutish; for it eradicates every spark\nof humanity.  Justice, truth, every thing is sacrificed by these\nRebekahs, and for the sake of their own children they violate the\nmost sacred duties, forgetting the common relationship that binds\nthe whole family on earth together.  Yet, reason seems to say, that\nthey who suffer one duty, or affection to swallow up the rest, have\nnot sufficient heart or mind to fulfil that one conscientiously.\nIt then loses the venerable aspect of a duty, and assumes the\nfantastic form of a whim.\n\nAs the care of children in their infancy is one of the grand duties\nannexed to the female character by nature, this duty would afford\nmany forcible arguments for strengthening the female understanding,\nif it were properly considered.\n\nThe formation of the mind must be begun very early, and the temper,\nin particular, requires the most judicious attention--an attention\nwhich women cannot pay who only love their children because they\nare their children, and seek no further for the foundation of their\nduty, than in the feelings of the moment.  It is this want of\nreason in their affections which makes women so often run into\nextremes, and either be the most fond, or most careless and\nunnatural mothers.\n\nTo be a good mother--a woman must have sense, and that independence\nof mind which few women possess who are taught to depend entirely\non their husbands.  Meek wives are, in general, foolish mothers;\nwanting their children to love them best, and take their part, in\nsecret, against the father, who is held up as a scarecrow.  If they\nare to be punished, though they have offended the mother, the\nfather must inflict the punishment; he must be the judge in all\ndisputes:  but I shall more fully discuss this subject when I treat\nof private education, I now only mean to insist, that unless the\nunderstanding of woman be enlarged, and her character rendered more\nfirm, by being allowed to govern her own conduct, she will never\nhave sufficient sense or command of temper to manage her children\nproperly.  Her parental affection, indeed, scarcely deserves the\nname, when it does not lead her to suckle her children, because the\ndischarge of this duty is equally calculated to inspire maternal\nand filial affection; and it is the indispensable duty of men and\nwomen to fulfil the duties which give birth to affections that are\nthe surest preservatives against vice.  Natural affection, as it is\ntermed, I believe to be a very weak tie, affections must grow out\nof the habitual exercise of a mutual sympathy; and what sympathy\ndoes a mother exercise who sends her babe to a nurse, and only\ntakes it from a nurse to send it to a school?\n\nIn the exercise of their natural feelings, providence has furnished\nwomen with a natural substitute for love, when the lover becomes\nonly a friend and mutual confidence takes place of overstrained\nadmiration--a child then gently twists the relaxing cord, and a\nmutual care produces a new mutual sympathy.  But a child, though a\npledge of affection, will not enliven it, if both father and mother\nare content to transfer the charge to hirelings; for they who do\ntheir duty by proxy should not murmur if they miss the reward of\nduty--parental affection produces filial duty.\n\n\nCHAPTER 11.\n\nDUTY TO PARENTS.\n\nThere seems to be an indolent propensity in man to make\nprescription always take place of reason, and to place every duty\non an arbitrary foundation.  The rights of kings are deduced in a\ndirect line from the King of kings; and that of parents from our\nfirst parent.\n\nWhy do we thus go back for principles that should always rest on\nthe same base, and have the same weight to-day that they had a\nthousand years ago--and not a jot more?  If parents discharge their\nduty they have a strong hold and sacred claim on the gratitude of\ntheir children; but few parents are willing to receive the\nrespectful affection of their offspring on such terms.  They demand\nblind obedience, because they do not merit a reasonable service:\nand to render these demands of weakness and ignorance more binding,\na mysterious sanctity is spread round the most arbitrary principle;\nfor what other name can be given to the blind duty of obeying\nvicious or weak beings, merely because they obeyed a powerful\ninstinct? The simple definition of the reciprocal duty, which\nnaturally subsists between parent and child, may be given in a few\nwords:  The parent who pays proper attention to helpless infancy\nhas a right to require the same attention when the feebleness of\nage comes upon him.  But to subjugate a rational being to the mere\nwill of another, after he is of age to answer to society for his\nown conduct, is a most cruel and undue stretch of power; and\nperhaps as injurious to morality, as those religious systems which\ndo not allow right and wrong to have any existence, but in the\nDivine will.\n\nI never knew a parent who had paid more than common attention to\nhis children, disregarded (Dr. Johnson makes the same\nobservation.); on the contrary, the early habit of relying almost\nimplicitly on the opinion of a respected parent is not easily\nshaken, even when matured reason convinces the child that his\nfather is not the wisest man in the world.  This weakness, for a\nweakness it is, though the epithet AMIABLE may be tacked to it, a\nreasonable man must steel himself against; for the absurd duty, too\noften inculcated, of obeying a parent only on account of his being\na parent, shackles the mind, and prepares it for a slavish\nsubmission to any power but reason.\n\nI distinguish between the natural and accidental duty due to\nparents.\n\nThe parent who sedulously endeavours to form the heart and enlarge\nthe understanding of his child, has given that dignity to the\ndischarge of a duty, common to the whole animal world, that only\nreason can give.  This is the parental affection of humanity, and\nleaves instinctive natural affection far behind.  Such a parent\nacquires all the rights of the most sacred friendship, and his\nadvice, even when his child is advanced in life, demands serious\nconsideration.\n\nWith respect to marriage, though after one and twenty a parent\nseems to have no right to withhold his consent on any account; yet\ntwenty years of solicitude call for a return, and the son ought, at\nleast, to promise not to marry for two or three years, should the\nobject of his choice not entirely meet with the approbation of his\nfirst friend.\n\nBut, respect for parents is, generally speaking, a much more\ndebasing principle; it is only a selfish respect for property.  The\nfather who is blindly obeyed, is obeyed from sheer weakness, or\nfrom motives that degrade the human character.\n\nA great proportion of the misery that wanders, in hideous forms\naround the world, is allowed to rise from the negligence of\nparents; and still these are the people who are most tenacious of\nwhat they term a natural right, though it be subversive of the\nbirth right of man, the right of acting according to the direction\nof his own reason.\n\nI have already very frequently had occasion to observe, that\nvicious or indolent people are always eager to profit by enforcing\narbitrary privileges; and generally in the same proportion as they\nneglect the discharge of the duties which alone render the\nprivileges reasonable.  This is at the bottom, a dictate of common\nsense, or the instinct of self-defence, peculiar to ignorant\nweakness; resembling that instinct, which makes a fish muddy the\nwater it swims in to elude its enemy, instead of boldly facing it\nin the clear stream.\n\n>From the clear stream of argument, indeed, the supporters of\nprescription, of every denomination, fly:  and taking refuge in the\ndarkness, which, in the language of sublime poetry, has been\nsupposed to surround the throne of Omnipotence, they dare to demand\nthat implicit respect which is only due to His unsearchable ways.\nBut, let me not be thought presumptuous, the darkness which hides\nour God from us, only respects speculative truths-- it never\nobscures moral ones, they shine clearly, for God is light, and\nnever, by the constitution of our nature, requires the discharge of\na duty, the reasonableness of which does not beam on us when we\nopen our eyes.\n\nThe indolent parent of high rank may, it is true, extort a show of\nrespect from his child, and females on the continent are\nparticularly subject to the views of their families, who never\nthink of consulting their inclination, or providing for the comfort\nof the poor victims of their pride.  The consequence is notorious;\nthese dutiful daughters become adulteresses, and neglect the\neducation of their children, from whom they, in their turn, exact\nthe same kind of obedience.\n\nFemales, it is true, in all countries, are too much under the\ndominion of their parents; and few parents think of addressing\ntheir children in the following manner, though it is in this\nreasonable way that Heaven seems to command the whole human race.\nIt is your interest to obey me till you can judge for yourself; and\nthe Almighty Father of all has implanted an affection in me to\nserve as a guard to you whilst your reason is unfolding; but when\nyour mind arrives at maturity, you must only obey me, or rather\nrespect my opinions, so far as they coincide with the light that is\nbreaking in on your own mind.\n\nA slavish bondage to parents cramps every faculty of the mind; and\nMr. Locke very judiciously observes, that \"if the mind be curbed\nand humbled too much in children; if their spirits be abased and\nbroken much by too strict an hand over them; they lose all their\nvigour and industry.\"  This strict hand may, in some degree,\naccount for the weakness of women; for girls, from various causes,\nare more kept down by their parents, in every sense of the word,\nthan boys.  The duty expected from them is, like all the duties\narbitrarily imposed on women, more from a sense of propriety, more\nout of respect for decorum, than reason; and thus taught slavishly\nto submit to their parents, they are prepared for the slavery of\nmarriage.  I may be told that a number of women are not slaves in\nthe marriage state.  True, but they then become tyrants; for it is\nnot rational freedom, but a lawless kind of power, resembling the\nauthority exercised by the favourites of absolute monarchs, which\nthey obtain by debasing means.  I do not, likewise, dream of\ninsinuating that either boys or girls are always slaves, I only\ninsist, that when they are obliged to submit to authority blindly,\ntheir faculties are weakened, and their tempers rendered imperious\nor abject.  I also lament, that parents, indolently availing\nthemselves of a supposed privilege, damp the first faint glimmering\nof reason rendering at the same time the duty, which they are so\nanxious to enforce, an empty name; because they will not let it\nrest on the only basis on which a duty can rest securely:  for,\nunless it be founded on knowledge, it cannot gain sufficient\nstrength to resist the squalls of passion, or the silent sapping of\nself-love.  But it is not the parents who have given the surest\nproof of their affection for their children, (or, to speak more\nproperly, who by fulfilling their duty, have allowed a natural\nparental affection to take root in their hearts, the child of\nexercised sympathy and reason, and not the over-weening offspring\nof selfish pride,) who most vehemently insist on their children\nsubmitting to their will, merely because it is their will.  On the\ncontrary, the parent who sets a good example, patiently lets that\nexample work; and it seldom fails to produce its natural\neffect--filial respect.\n\nChildren cannot be taught too early to submit to reason, the true\ndefinition of that necessity, which Rousseau insisted on, without\ndefining it; for to submit to reason, is to submit to the nature of\nthings, and to that God who formed them so, to promote our real\ninterest.\n\nWhy should the minds of children be warped as they just begin to\nexpand, only to favour the indolence of parents, who insist on a\nprivilege without being willing to pay the price fixed by nature?\nI have before had occasion to observe, that a right always includes\na duty, and I think it may, likewise fairly be inferred, that they\nforfeit the right, who do not fulfil the duty.\n\nIt is easier, I grant, to command than reason; but it does not\nfollow from hence, that children cannot comprehend the reason why\nthey are made to do certain things habitually; for, from a steady\nadherence to a few simple principles of conduct flows that salutary\npower, which a judicious parent gradually gains over a child's\nmind.  And this power becomes strong indeed, if tempered by an even\ndisplay of affection brought home to the child's heart.  For, I\nbelieve, as a general rule, it must be allowed, that the affection\nwhich we inspire always resembles that we cultivate; so that\nnatural affections, which have been supposed almost distinct from\nreason, may be found more nearly connected with judgment than is\ncommonly allowed.  Nay, as another proof of the necessity of\ncultivating the female understanding, it is but just to observe,\nthat the affections seem to have a kind of animal capriciousness\nwhen they merely reside in the heart.\n\nIt is the irregular exercise of parental authority that first\ninjures the mind, and to these irregularities girls are more\nsubject than boys.  The will of those who never allow their will to\nbe disputed, unless they happen to be in a good humour, when they\nrelax proportionally, is almost always unreasonable.  To elude this\narbitrary authority, girls very early learn the lessons which they\nafterwards practise on their husbands; for I have frequently seen a\nlittle sharp-faced miss rule a whole family, excepting that now and\nthen mamma's anger will burst out of some accidental cloud-- either\nher hair was ill-dressed,* or she had lost more money at cards, the\nnight before, than she was willing to own to her husband; or some\nsuch moral cause of anger.\n\n(*Footnote.  I myself heard a little girl once say to a servant,\n\"My mamma has been scolding me finely this morning, because her\nhair was not dressed to please her.\"  Though this remark was pert,\nit was just.  And what respect could a girl acquire for such a\nparent, without doing violence to reason?)\n\nAfter observing sallies of this kind, I have been led into a\nmelancholy train of reflection respecting females, concluding that\nwhen their first affection must lead them astray, or make their\nduties clash till they rest on mere whims and customs, little can\nbe expected from them as they advance in life.  How, indeed, can an\ninstructor remedy this evil? for to teach them virtue on any solid\nprinciple is to teach them to despise their parents.  Children\ncannot, ought not to be taught to make allowance for the faults of\ntheir parents, because every such allowance weakens the force of\nreason in their minds, and makes them still more indulgent to their\nown.  It is one of the most sublime virtues of maturity that leads\nus to be severe with respect to ourselves, and forbearing to\nothers; but children should only be taught the simple virtues, for\nif they begin too early to make allowance for human passions and\nmanners, they wear off the fine edge of the criterion by which they\nshould regulate their own, and become unjust in the same proportion\nas they grow indulgent.\n\nThe affections of children, and weak people, are always selfish;\nthey love others, because others love them, and not on account of\ntheir virtues.  Yet, till esteem and love are blended together in\nthe first affection, and reason made the foundation of the first\nduty, morality will stumble at the threshold.  But, till society is\nvery differently constituted, parents, I fear, will still insist on\nbeing obeyed, because they will be obeyed, and constantly endeavour\nto settle that power on a Divine right, which will not bear the\ninvestigation of reason.\n\n\nCHAPTER 12.\n\nON NATIONAL EDUCATION.\n\nThe good effects resulting from attention to private education will\never be very confined, and the parent who really puts his own hand\nto the plow, will always, in some degree be disappointed, till\neducation becomes a grand national concern.  A man cannot retire\ninto a desert with his child, and if he did, he could not bring\nhimself back to childhood, and become the proper friend and\nplay-fellow of an infant or youth.  And when children are confined\nto the society of men and women, they very soon acquire that kind\nof premature manhood which stops the growth of every vigorous power\nof mind or body.  In order to open their faculties they should be\nexcited to think for themselves; and this can only be done by\nmixing a number of children together, and making them jointly\npursue the same objects.\n\nA child very soon contracts a benumbing indolence of mind, which he\nhas seldom sufficient vigour to shake off, when he only asks a\nquestion instead of seeking for information, and then relies\nimplicitly on the answer he receives.  With his equals in age this\ncould never be the case, and the subjects of inquiry, though they\nmight be influenced, would not be entirely under the direction of\nmen, who frequently damp, if not destroy abilities, by bringing\nthem forward too hastily:  and too hastily they will infallibly be\nbrought forward, if the child could be confined to the society of a\nman, however sagacious that man may be.\n\nBesides, in youth the seeds of every affection should be sown, and\nthe respectful regard, which is felt for a parent, is very\ndifferent from the social affections that are to constitute the\nhappiness of life as it advances.  Of these, equality is the basis,\nand an intercourse of sentiments unclogged by that observant\nseriousness which prevents disputation, though it may not inforce\nsubmission.  Let a child have ever such an affection for his\nparent, he will always languish to play and chat with children; and\nthe very respect he entertains, for filial esteem always has a dash\nof fear mixed with it, will, if it do not teach him cunning, at\nleast prevent him from pouring out the little secrets which first\nopen the heart to friendship and confidence, gradually leading to\nmore expansive benevolence.  Added to this, he will never acquire\nthat frank ingenuousness of behaviour, which young people can only\nattain by being frequently in society, where they dare to speak\nwhat they think; neither afraid of being reproved for their\npresumption, nor laughed at for their folly.\n\nForcibly impressed by the reflections which the sight of schools,\nas they are at present conducted, naturally suggested, I have\nformerly delivered my opinion rather warmly in favour of a private\neducation; but further experience has led me to view the subject in\na different light.  I still, however, think schools, as they are\nnow regulated, the hot-beds of vice and folly, and the knowledge of\nhuman nature, supposed to be attained there, merely cunning\nselfishness.\n\nAt school, boys become gluttons and slovens, and, instead of\ncultivating domestic affections, very early rush into the\nlibertinism which destroys the constitution before it is formed;\nhardening the heart as it weakens the understanding.\n\nI should, in fact, be averse to boarding-schools, if it were for no\nother reason than the unsettled state of mind which the expectation\nof the vacations produce.  On these the children's thoughts are\nfixed with eager anticipating hopes, for, at least, to speak with\nmoderation, half of the time, and when they arrive they are spent\nin total dissipation and beastly indulgence.\n\nBut, on the contrary, when they are brought up at home, though they\nmay pursue a plan of study in a more orderly manner than can be\nadopted, when near a fourth part of the year is actually spent in\nidleness, and as much more in regret and anticipation; yet they\nthere acquire too high an opinion of their own importance, from\nbeing allowed to tyrannize over servants, and from the anxiety\nexpressed by most mothers, on the score of manners, who, eager to\nteach the accomplishments of a gentleman, stifle, in their birth,\nthe virtues of a man.  Thus brought into company when they ought to\nbe seriously employed, and treated like men when they are still\nboys, they become vain and effeminate.\n\nThe only way to avoid two extremes equally injurious to morality,\nwould be to contrive some way of combining a public and private\neducation.  Thus to make men citizens, two natural steps might be\ntaken, which seem directly to lead to the desired point; for the\ndomestic affections, that first open the heart to the various\nmodifications of humanity would be cultivated, whilst the children\nwere nevertheless allowed to spend great part of their time, on\nterms of equality, with other children.\n\nI still recollect, with pleasure, the country day school; where a\nboy trudged in the morning, wet or dry, carrying his books, and his\ndinner, if it were at a considerable distance; a servant did not\nthen lead master by the hand, for, when he had once put on coat and\nbreeches, he was allowed to shift for himself, and return alone in\nthe evening to recount the feats of the day close at the parental\nknee.  His father's house was his home, and was ever after fondly\nremembered; nay, I appeal to some superior men who were educated in\nthis manner, whether the recollection of some shady lane where they\nconned their lesson; or, of some stile, where they sat making a\nkite, or mending a bat, has not endeared their country to them?\n\nBut, what boy ever recollected with pleasure the years he spent in\nclose confinement, at an academy near London? unless indeed he\nshould by chance remember the poor scare-crow of an usher whom he\ntormented; or, the tartman, from whom he caught a cake, to devour\nit with the cattish appetite of selfishness.  At boarding schools\nof every description, the relaxation of the junior boys is\nmischief; and of the senior, vice.  Besides, in great schools what\ncan be more prejudicial to the moral character, than the system of\ntyranny and abject slavery which is established amongst the boys,\nto say nothing of the slavery to forms, which makes religion worse\nthan a farce?  For what good can be expected from the youth who\nreceives the sacrament of the Lord's supper, to avoid forfeiting\nhalf-a-guinea, which he probably afterwards spends in some sensual\nmanner?  Half the employment of the youths is to elude the\nnecessity of attending public worship; and well they may, for such\na constant repetition of the same thing must be a very irksome\nrestraint on their natural vivacity.  As these ceremonies have the\nmost fatal effect on their morals, and as a ritual performed by the\nlips, when the heart and mind are far away, is not now stored up by\nour church as a bank to draw on for the fees of the poor souls in\npurgatory, why should they not be abolished?\n\nBut the fear of innovation, in this country, extends to every\nthing.  This is only a covert fear, the apprehensive timidity of\nindolent slugs, who guard, by sliming it over, the snug place,\nwhich they consider in the light of an hereditary estate; and eat,\ndrink, and enjoy themselves, instead of fulfilling the duties,\nexcepting a few empty forms, for which it was endowed.  These are\nthe people who most strenuously insist on the will of the founder\nbeing observed, crying out against all reformation, as if it were a\nviolation of justice.  I am now alluding particularly to the\nrelicks of popery retained in our colleges, where the protestant\nmembers seem to be such sticklers for the established church; but\ntheir zeal never makes them lose sight of the spoil of ignorance,\nwhich rapacious priests of superstitious memory have scraped\ntogether.  No, wise in their generation, they venerate the\nprescriptive right of possession, as a strong hold, and still let\nthe sluggish bell tingle to prayers, as during the days, when the\nelevation of the host was supposed to atone for the sins of the\npeople, lest one reformation should lead to another, and the spirit\nkill the letter.  These Romish customs have the most baneful effect\non the morals of our clergy; for the idle vermin who two or three\ntimes a day perform, in the most slovenly manner a service which\nthey think useless, but call their duty, soon lose a sense of duty.\nAt college, forced to attend or evade public worship, they acquire\nan habitual contempt for the very service, the performance of which\nis to enable them to live in idleness.  It is mumbled over as an\naffair of business, as a stupid boy repeats his task, and\nfrequently the college cant escapes from the preacher the moment\nafter he has left the pulpit, and even whilst he is eating the\ndinner which he earned in such a dishonest manner.\n\nNothing, indeed, can be more irreverent than the cathedral service\nas it is now performed in this country, neither does it contain a\nset of weaker men than those who are the slaves of this childish\nroutine.  A disgusting skeleton of the former state is still\nexhibited; but all the solemnity, that interested the imagination,\nif it did not purify the heart, is stripped off.  The performance\nof high mass on the continent must impress every mind, where a\nspark of fancy glows, with that awful melancholy, that sublime\ntenderness, so near a-kin to devotion.  I do not say, that these\ndevotional feelings are of more use, in a moral sense, than any\nother emotion of taste; but I contend, that the theatrical pomp\nwhich gratifies our senses, is to be preferred to the cold parade\nthat insults the understanding without reaching the heart.\n\nAmongst remarks on national education, such observations cannot be\nmisplaced, especially as the supporters of these establishments,\ndegenerated into puerilities, affect to be the champions of\nreligion.  Religion, pure source of comfort in this vale of tears!\nhow has thy clear stream been muddied by the dabblers, who have\npresumptuously endeavoured to confine in one narrow channel, the\nliving waters that ever flow toward God-- the sublime ocean of\nexistence!  What would life be without that peace which the love of\nGod, when built on humanity, alone can impart?  Every earthly\naffection turns back, at intervals, to prey upon the heart that\nfeeds it; and the purest effusions of benevolence, often rudely\ndamped by men, must mount as a free-will offering to Him who gave\nthem birth, whose bright image they faintly reflect.\n\nIn public schools, however, religion, confounded with irksome\nceremonies and unreasonable restraints, assumes the most ungracious\naspect:  not the sober austere one that commands respect whilst it\ninspires fear; but a ludicrous cast, that serves to point a pun.\nFor, in fact, most of the good stories and smart things which\nenliven the spirits that have been concentrated at whist, are\nmanufactured out of the incidents to which the very men labour to\ngive a droll turn who countenance the abuse to live on the spoil.\n\nThere is not, perhaps, in the kingdom, a more dogmatical or\nluxurious set of men, than the pedantic tyrants who reside in\ncolleges and preside at public schools.  The vacations are equally\ninjurious to the morals of the masters and pupils, and the\nintercourse, which the former keep up with the nobility, introduces\nthe same vanity and extravagance into their families, which banish\ndomestic duties and comforts from the lordly mansion, whose state\nis awkwardly aped on a smaller scale.  The boys, who live at a\ngreat expence with the masters and assistants, are never\ndomesticated, though placed there for that purpose; for, after a\nsilent dinner, they swallow a hasty glass of wine, and retire to\nplan some mischievous trick, or to ridicule the person or manners\nof the very people they have just been cringing to, and whom they\nought to consider as the representatives of their parents.\n\nCan it then be a matter of surprise, that boys become selfish and\nvicious who are thus shut out from social converse? or that a mitre\noften graces the brow of one of these diligent pastors? The desire\nof living in the same style, as the rank just above them, infects\neach individual and every class of people, and meanness is the\nconcomitant of this ignoble ambition; but those professions are\nmost debasing whose ladder is patronage; yet out of one of these\nprofessions the tutors of youth are in general chosen.  But, can\nthey be expected to inspire independent sentiments, whose conduct\nmust be regulated by the cautious prudence that is ever on the\nwatch for preferment?\n\nSo far, however, from thinking of the morals of boys, I have heard\nseveral masters of schools argue, that they only undertook to teach\nLatin and Greek; and that they had fulfilled their duty, by sending\nsome good scholars to college.\n\nA few good scholars, I grant, may have been formed by emulation and\ndiscipline; but, to bring forward these clever boys, the health and\nmorals of a number have been sacrificed.\n\nThe sons of our gentry and wealthy commoners are mostly educated at\nthese seminaries, and will any one pretend to assert, that the\nmajority, making every allowance, come under the description of\ntolerable scholars?\n\nIt is not for the benefit of society that a few brilliant men\nshould be brought forward at the expence of the multitude.  It is\ntrue, that great men seem to start up, as great revolutions occur,\nat proper intervals, to restore order, and to blow aside the clouds\nthat thicken over the face of truth; but let more reason and virtue\nprevail in society, and these strong winds would not be necessary.\nPublic education, of every denomination, should be directed to form\ncitizens; but if you wish to make good citizens, you must first\nexercise the affections of a son and a brother.  This is the only\nway to expand the heart; for public affections, as well as public\nvirtues, must ever grow out of the private character, or they are\nmerely meteors that shoot athwart a dark sky, and disappear as they\nare gazed at and admired.\n\nFew, I believe, have had much affection for mankind, who did not\nfirst love their parents, their brothers, sisters, and even the\ndomestic brutes, whom they first played with.  The exercise of\nyouthful sympathies forms the moral temperature; and it is the\nrecollection of these first affections and pursuits, that gives\nlife to those that are afterwards more under the direction of\nreason.  In youth, the fondest friendships are formed, the genial\njuices mounting at the same time, kindly mix; or, rather the heart,\ntempered for the reception of friendship, is accustomed to seek for\npleasure in something more noble than the churlish gratification of\nappetite.\n\nIn order then to inspire a love of home and domestic pleasures,\nchildren ought to be educated at home, for riotous holidays only\nmake them fond of home for their own sakes.  Yet, the vacations,\nwhich do not foster domestic affections, continually disturb the\ncourse of study, and render any plan of improvement abortive which\nincludes temperance; still, were they abolished, children would be\nentirely separated from their parents, and I question whether they\nwould become better citizens by sacrificing the preparatory\naffections, by destroying the force of relationships that render\nthe marriage state as necessary as respectable.  But, if a private\neducation produce self-importance, or insulates a man in his\nfamily, the evil is only shifted, not remedied.\n\nThis train of reasoning brings me back to a subject, on which I\nmean to dwell, the necessity of establishing proper day-schools.\n\nBut these should be national establishments, for whilst\nschool-masters are dependent on the caprice of parents, little\nexertion can be expected from them, more than is necessary to\nplease ignorant people.  Indeed, the necessity of a master's giving\nthe parents some sample of the boy's abilities, which during the\nvacation, is shown to every visiter, is productive of more mischief\nthan would at first be supposed.  For they are seldom done\nentirely, to speak with moderation, by the child itself; thus the\nmaster countenances falsehoods, or winds the poor machine up to\nsome extraordinary exertion, that injures the wheels, and stops the\nprogress of gradual improvement.  The memory is loaded with\nunintelligible words, to make a show of, without the\nunderstanding's acquiring any distinct ideas: but only that\neducation deserves emphatically to be termed cultivation of mind,\nwhich teaches young people how to begin to think.  The imagination\nshould not be allowed to debauch the understanding before it gained\nstrength, or vanity will become the forerunner of vice:  for every\nway of exhibiting the acquirements of a child is injurious to its\nmoral character.\n\nHow much time is lost in teaching them to recite what they do not\nunderstand! whilst, seated on benches, all in their best array, the\nmammas listen with astonishment to the parrot-like prattle, uttered\nin solemn cadences, with all the pomp of ignorance and folly.  Such\nexhibitions only serve to strike the spreading fibres of vanity\nthrough the whole mind; for they neither teach children to speak\nfluently, nor behave gracefully.  So far from it, that these\nfrivolous pursuits might comprehensively be termed the study of\naffectation: for we now rarely see a simple, bashful boy, though\nfew people of taste were ever disgusted by that awkward\nsheepishness so natural to the age, which schools and an early\nintroduction into society, have changed into impudence and apish\ngrimace.\n\nYet, how can these things be remedied whilst schoolmasters depend\nentirely on parents for a subsistence; and when so many rival\nschools hang out their lures to catch the attention of vain fathers\nand mothers, whose parental affection only leads them to wish, that\ntheir children should outshine those of their neighbours?\n\nWithout great good luck, a sensible, conscientious man, would\nstarve before he could raise a school, if he disdained to bubble\nweak parents, by practising the secret tricks of the craft.\n\nIn the best regulated schools, however, where swarms are not\ncrammed together many bad habits must be acquired; but, at common\nschools, the body, heart, and understanding, are equally stunted,\nfor parents are often only in quest of the cheapest school, and the\nmaster could not live, if he did not take a much greater number\nthan he could manage himself; nor will the scanty pittance, allowed\nfor each child, permit him to hire ushers sufficient to assist in\nthe discharge of the mechanical part of the business.  Besides,\nwhatever appearance the house and garden may make, the children do\nnot enjoy the comforts of either, for they are continually\nreminded, by irksome restrictions, that they are not at home, and\nthe state-rooms, garden, etc. must be kept in order for the\nrecreation of the parents; who, of a Sunday, visit the school, and\nare impressed by the very parade that renders the situation of\ntheir children uncomfortable.\n\nWith what disgust have I heard sensible women, for girls are more\nrestrained and cowed than boys, speak of the wearisome confinement\nwhich they endured at school.  Not allowed, perhaps, to step out of\none broad walk in a superb garden, and obliged to pace with steady\ndeportment stupidly backwards and forwards, holding up their heads,\nand turning out their toes, with shoulders braced back, instead of\nbounding, as nature directs to complete her own design, in the\nvarious attitudes so conducive to health.  The pure animal spirits,\nwhich make both mind and body shoot out, and unfold the tender\nblossoms of hope are turned sour, and vented in vain wishes, or\npert repinings, that contract the faculties and spoil the temper;\nelse they mount to the brain and sharpening the understanding\nbefore it gains proportionable strength, produce that pitiful\ncunning which disgracefully characterizes the female mind--and I\nfear will ever characterize it whilst women remain the slaves of\npower!\n\nThe little respect which the male world pay to chastity is, I am\npersuaded, the grand source of many of the physical and moral evils\nthat torment mankind, as well as of the vices and follies that\ndegrade and destroy women; yet at school, boys infallibly lose that\ndecent bashfulness, which might have ripened into modesty at home.\n\nI have already animadverted on the bad habits which females acquire\nwhen they are shut up together; and I think that the observation\nmay fairly be extended to the other sex, till the natural inference\nis drawn which I have had in view throughout--that to improve both\nsexes they ought, not only in private families, but in public\nschools, to be educated together.  If marriage be the cement of\nsociety, mankind should all be educated after the same model, or\nthe intercourse of the sexes will never deserve the name of\nfellowship, nor will women ever fulfil the peculiar duties of their\nsex, till they become enlightened citizens, till they become free,\nby being enabled to earn their own subsistence, independent of men;\nin the same manner, I mean, to prevent misconstruction, as one man\nis independent of another.  Nay, marriage will never be held sacred\ntill women by being brought up with men, are prepared to be their\ncompanions, rather than their mistresses; for the mean doublings of\ncunning will ever render them contemptible, whilst oppression\nrenders them timid.  So convinced am I of this truth, that I will\nventure to predict, that virtue will never prevail in society till\nthe virtues of both sexes are founded on reason; and, till the\naffection common to both are allowed to gain their due strength by\nthe discharge of mutual duties.\n\nWere boys and girls permitted to pursue the same studies together,\nthose graceful decencies might early be inculcated which produce\nmodesty, without those sexual distinctions that taint the mind.\nLessons of politeness, and that formulary of decorum, which treads\non the heels of falsehood, would be rendered useless by habitual\npropriety of behaviour.  Not, indeed put on for visiters like the\ncourtly robe of politeness, but the sober effect of cleanliness of\nmind.  Would not this simple elegance of sincerity be a chaste\nhomage paid to domestic affections, far surpassing the meretricious\ncompliments that shine with false lustre in the heartless\nintercourse of fashionable life?  But, till more understanding\npreponderate in society, there will ever be a want of heart and\ntaste, and the harlot's rouge will supply the place of that\ncelestial suffusion which only virtuous affections can give to the\nface.  Gallantry, and what is called love, may subsist without\nsimplicity of character; but the main pillars of friendship, are\nrespect and confidence--esteem is never founded on it cannot tell\nwhat.\n\nA taste for the fine arts requires great cultivation; but not more\nthan a taste for the virtuous affections:  and both suppose that\nenlargement of mind which opens so many sources of mental pleasure.\nWhy do people hurry to noisy scenes and crowded circles?  I should\nanswer, because they want activity of mind, because they have not\ncherished the virtues of the heart.  They only, therefore, see and\nfeel in the gross, and continually pine after variety, finding\nevery thing that is simple, insipid.\n\nThis argument may be carried further than philosophers are aware\nof, for if nature destined woman, in particular, for the discharge\nof domestic duties, she made her susceptible of the attached\naffections in a great degree.  Now women are notoriously fond of\npleasure; and naturally must be so, according to my definition,\nbecause they cannot enter into the minutiae of domestic taste;\nlacking judgment the foundation of all taste.  For the\nunderstanding, in spite of sensual cavillers, reserves to itself\nthe privilege of conveying pure joy to the heart.\n\nWith what a languid yawn have I seen an admirable poem thrown down,\nthat a man of true taste returns to, again and again with rapture;\nand, whilst melody has almost suspended respiration, a lady has\nasked me where I bought my gown.  I have seen also an eye glanced\ncoldly over a most exquisite picture, rest, sparkling with\npleasure, on a caricature rudely sketched; and whilst some terrific\nfeature in nature has spread a sublime stillness through my soul, I\nhave been desired to observe the pretty tricks of a lap-dog, that\nmy perverse fate forced me to travel with.  Is it surprising, that\nsuch a tasteless being should rather caress this dog than her\nchildren?  Or, that she should prefer the rant of flattery to the\nsimple accents of sincerity?\n\nTo illustrate this remark I must be allowed to observe, that men of\nthe first genius, and most cultivated minds, have appeared to have\nthe highest relish for the simple beauties of nature; and they must\nhave forcibly felt, what they have so well described, the charm,\nwhich natural affections, and unsophisticated feelings spread round\nthe human character.  It is this power of looking into the heart,\nand responsively vibrating with each emotion, that enables the poet\nto personify each passion, and the painter to sketch with a pencil\nof fire.\n\nTrue taste is ever the work of the understanding employed in\nobserving natural effects; and till women have more understanding,\nit is vain to expect them to possess domestic taste.  Their lively\nsenses will ever be at work to harden their hearts, and the\nemotions struck out of them will continue to be vivid and\ntransitory, unless a proper education stores their minds with\nknowledge.\n\nIt is the want of domestic taste, and not the acquirement of\nknowledge, that takes women out of their families, and tears the\nsmiling babe from the breast that ought to afford it nourishment.\nWomen have been allowed to remain in ignorance, and slavish\ndependence, many, very many years, and still we hear of nothing but\ntheir fondness of pleasure and sway, their preference of rakes and\nsoldiers, their childish attachment to toys, and the vanity that\nmakes them value accomplishments more than virtues.\n\nHistory brings forward a fearful catalogue of the crimes which\ntheir cunning has produced, when the weak slaves have had\nsufficient address to over-reach their masters.  In France, and in\nhow many other countries have men been the luxurious despots, and\nwomen the crafty ministers?  Does this prove that ignorance and\ndependence domesticate them?  Is not their folly the by-word of the\nlibertines, who relax in their society; and do not men of sense\ncontinually lament, that an immoderate fondness for dress and\ndissipation carries the mother of a family for ever from home?\nTheir hearts have not been debauched by knowledge, nor their minds\nled astray by scientific pursuits; yet, they do not fulfil the\npeculiar duties, which as women they are called upon by nature to\nfulfil.  On the contrary, the state of warfare which subsists\nbetween the sexes, makes them employ those wiles, that frustrate\nthe more open designs of force.\n\nWhen, therefore, I call women slaves, I mean in a political and\ncivil sense; for, indirectly they obtain too much power, and are\ndebased by their exertions to obtain illicit sway.\n\nLet an enlightened nation then try what effect reason would have to\nbring them back to nature, and their duty; and allowing them to\nshare the advantages of education and government with man, see\nwhether they will become better, as they grow wiser and become\nfree.  They cannot be injured by the experiment; for it is not in\nthe power of man to render them more insignificant than they are at\npresent.\n\nTo render this practicable, day schools for particular ages should\nbe established by government, in which boys and girls might be\neducated together.  The school for the younger children, from five\nto nine years of age, ought to be absolutely free and open to all\nclasses.*  A sufficient number of masters should also be chosen by\na select committee, in each parish, to whom any complaint of\nnegligence, etc. might be made, if signed by six of the children's\nparents.\n\n(*Footnote.  Treating this part of the subject, I have borrowed\nsome hints from a very sensible pamphlet written by the late bishop\nof Autun on public Education.)\n\nUshers would then be unnecessary; for, I believe, experience will\never prove, that this kind of subordinate authority is particularly\ninjurious to the morals of youth.  What, indeed, can tend to\ndeprave the character more than outward submission and inward\ncontempt?  Yet, how can boys be expected to treat an usher with\nrespect when the master seems to consider him in the light of a\nservant, and almost to countenance the ridicule which becomes the\nchief amusement of the boys during the play hours?\n\nBut nothing of this kind could occur in an elementary day-school,\nwhere boys and girls, the rich and poor, should meet together.  And\nto prevent any of the distinctions of vanity, they should be\ndressed alike, and all obliged to submit to the same discipline, or\nleave the school.  The school-room ought to be surrounded by a\nlarge piece of ground, in which the children might be usefully\nexercised, for at this age they should not be confined to any\nsedentary employment for more than an hour at a time.  But these\nrelaxations might all be rendered a part of elementary education,\nfor many things improve and amuse the senses, when introduced as a\nkind of show, to the principles of which dryly laid down, children\nwould turn a deaf ear.  For instance, botany, mechanics, and\nastronomy.  Reading, writing, arithmetic, natural history, and some\nsimple experiments in natural philosophy, might fill up the day;\nbut these pursuits should never encroach on gymnastic plays in the\nopen air.  The elements of religion, history, the history of man,\nand politics, might also be taught by conversations, in the\nsocratic form.\n\nAfter the age of nine, girls and boys, intended for domestic\nemployments, or mechanical trades, ought to be removed to other\nschools, and receive instruction, in some measure appropriated to\nthe destination of each individual, the two sexes being still\ntogether in the morning; but in the afternoon, the girls should\nattend a school, where plain work, mantua-making, millinery, etc.\nwould be their employment.\n\nThe young people of superior abilities, or fortune, might now be\ntaught, in another school, the dead and living languages, the\nelements of science, and continue the study of history and\npolitics, on a more extensive scale, which would not exclude polite\nliterature.  Girls and boys still together? I hear some readers\nask:  yes.  And I should not fear any other consequence, than that\nsome early attachment might take place; which, whilst it had the\nbest effect on the moral character of the young people, might not\nperfectly agree with the views of the parents, for it will be a\nlong time, I fear, before the world is so enlightened, that\nparents, only anxious to render their children virtuous, will let\nthem choose companions for life themselves.\n\nBesides, this would be a sure way to promote early marriages, and\nfrom early marriages the most salutary physical and moral effects\nnaturally flow.  What a different character does a married citizen\nassume from the selfish coxcomb, who lives but for himself, and who\nis often afraid to marry lest he should not be able to live in a\ncertain style.  Great emergencies excepted, which would rarely\noccur in a society of which equality was the basis, a man could\nonly be prepared to discharge the duties of public life, by the\nhabitual practice of those inferior ones which form the man.\n\nIn this plan of education, the constitution of boys would not be\nruined by the early debaucheries, which now make men so selfish,\nnor girls rendered weak and vain, by indolence and frivolous\npursuits.  But, I presuppose, that such a degree of equality should\nbe established between the sexes as would shut out gallantry and\ncoquetry, yet allow friendship and love to temper the heart for the\ndischarge of higher duties.\n\nThese would be schools of morality--and the happiness of man,\nallowed to flow from the pure springs of duty and affection, what\nadvances might not the human mind make?  Society can only be happy\nand free in proportion as it is virtuous; but the present\ndistinctions, established in society, corrode all private, and\nblast all public virtue.\n\nI have already inveighed against the custom of confining girls to\ntheir needle, and shutting them out from all political and civil\nemployments; for by thus narrowing their minds they are rendered\nunfit to fulfil the peculiar duties which nature has assigned them.\n\nOnly employed about the little incidents of the day, they\nnecessarily grow up cunning.  My very soul has often sickened at\nobserving the sly tricks practised by women to gain some foolish\nthing on which their silly hearts were set.  Not allowed to dispose\nof money, or call any thing their own, they learn to turn the\nmarket penny; or, should a husband offend, by staying from home, or\ngive rise to some emotions of jealousy--a new gown, or any pretty\nbauble, smooths Juno's angry brow.\n\nBut these LITTLENESSES would not degrade their character, if women\nwere led to respect themselves, if political and moral subjects\nwere opened to them; and I will venture to affirm, that this is the\nonly way to make them properly attentive to their domestic duties.\nAn active mind embraces the whole circle of its duties, and finds\ntime enough for all.  It is not, I assert, a bold attempt to\nemulate masculine virtues; it is not the enchantment of literary\npursuits, or the steady investigation of scientific subjects, that\nlead women astray from duty.  No, it is indolence and vanity --the\nlove of pleasure and the love of sway, that will reign paramount in\nan empty mind.  I say empty, emphatically, because the education\nwhich women now receive scarcely deserves the name.  For the little\nknowledge they are led to acquire during the important years of\nyouth, is merely relative to accomplishments; and accomplishments\nwithout a bottom, for unless the understanding be cultivated,\nsuperficial and monotonous is every grace.  Like the charms of a\nmade-up face, they only strike the senses in a crowd; but at home,\nwanting mind, they want variety.  The consequence is obvious; in\ngay scenes of dissipation we meet the artificial mind and face, for\nthose who fly from solitude dread next to solitude, the domestic\ncircle; not having it in their power to amuse or interest, they\nfeel their own insignificance, or find nothing to amuse or interest\nthemselves.\n\nBesides, what can be more indelicate than a girl's coming out in\nthe fashionable world?  Which, in other words, is to bring to\nmarket a marriageable miss, whose person is taken from one public\nplace to another, richly caparisoned.  Yet, mixing in the giddy\ncircle under restraint, these butterflies long to flutter at large,\nfor the first affection of their souls is their own persons, to\nwhich their attention has been called with the most sedulous care,\nwhilst they were preparing for the period that decides their fate\nfor life.  Instead of pursuing this idle routine, sighing for\ntasteless show, and heartless state, with what dignity would the\nyouths of both sexes form attachments in the schools that I have\ncursorily pointed out; in which, as life advanced, dancing, music,\nand drawing, might be admitted as relaxations, for at these schools\nyoung people of fortune ought to remain, more or less, till they\nwere of age.  Those, who were designed for particular professions,\nmight attend, three or four mornings in the week, the schools\nappropriated for their immediate instruction.\n\nI only drop these observations at present, as hints; rather, indeed\nas an outline of the plan I mean, than a digested one; but I must\nadd, that I highly approve of one regulation mentioned in the\npamphlet already alluded to (The Bishop of Autun), that of making\nthe children and youths independent of the masters respecting\npunishments.  They should be tried by their peers, which would be\nan admirable method of fixing sound principles of justice in the\nmind, and might have the happiest effect on the temper, which is\nvery early soured or irritated by tyranny, till it becomes\npeevishly cunning, or ferociously overbearing.\n\nMy imagination darts forward with benevolent fervour to greet these\namiable and respectable groups, in spite of the sneering of cold\nhearts, who are at liberty to utter, with frigid self-importance,\nthe damning epithet-- romantic; the force of which I shall\nendeavour to blunt by repeating the words of an eloquent moralist.\n\"I know not whether the allusions of a truly humane heart, whose\nzeal renders every thing easy, is not preferable to that rough and\nrepulsing reason, which always finds in indifference for the public\ngood, the first obstacle to whatever would promote it.\"\n\nI know that libertines will also exclaim, that woman would be\nunsexed by acquiring strength of body and mind, and that beauty,\nsoft bewitching beauty! would no longer adorn the daughters of men.\nI am of a very different opinion, for I think, that, on the\ncontrary, we should then see dignified beauty, and true grace; to\nproduce which, many powerful physical and moral causes would\nconcur.  Not relaxed beauty, it is true, nor the graces of\nhelplessness; but such as appears to make us respect the human body\nas a majestic pile, fit to receive a noble inhabitant, in the\nrelics of antiquity.\n\nI do not forget the popular opinion, that the Grecian statues were\nnot modelled after nature.  I mean, not according to the\nproportions of a particular man; but that beautiful limbs and\nfeatures were selected from various bodies to form an harmonious\nwhole.  This might, in some degree, be true.  The fine ideal\npicture of an exalted imagination might be superior to the\nmaterials which the painter found in nature, and thus it might with\npropriety be termed rather the model of mankind than of a man.  It\nwas not, however, the mechanical selection of limbs and features,\nbut the ebullition of an heated fancy that burst forth; and the\nfine senses and enlarged understanding of the artist selected the\nsolid matter, which he drew into this glowing focus.\n\nI observed that it was not mechanical, because a whole was\nproduced--a model of that grand simplicity, of those concurring\nenergies, which arrest our attention and command our reverence.\nFor only insipid lifeless beauty is produced by a servile copy of\neven beautiful nature.  Yet, independent of these observations, I\nbelieve, that the human form must have been far more beautiful than\nit is at present, because extreme indolence, barbarous ligatures,\nand many causes, which forcibly act on it, in our luxurious state\nof society, did not retard its expansion, or render it deformed.\nExercise and cleanliness appear to be not only the surest means of\npreserving health, but of promoting beauty, the physical causes\nonly considered; yet, this is not sufficient, moral ones must\nconcur, or beauty will be merely of that rustic kind which blooms\non the innocent, wholesome countenances of some country people,\nwhose minds have not been exercised.  To render the person perfect,\nphysical and moral beauty ought to be attained at the same time;\neach lending and receiving force by the combination.  Judgment must\nreside on the brow, affection and fancy beam in the eye, and\nhumanity curve the cheek, or vain is the sparkling of the finest\neye or the elegantly turned finish of the fairest features;  whilst\nin every motion that displays the active limbs and well-knit\njoints, grace and modesty should appear.  But this fair assemblage\nis not to be brought together by chance; it is the reward of\nexertions met to support each other; for judgment can only be\nacquired by reflection, affection, by the discharge of duties, and\nhumanity by the exercise of compassion to every living creature.\n\nHumanity to animals should be particularly inculcated as a part of\nnational education, for it is not at present one of our national\nvirtues.  Tenderness for their humble dumb domestics, amongst the\nlower class, is oftener to be found in a savage than a civilized\nstate.  For civilization prevents that intercourse which creates\naffection in the rude hut, or mud cabin, and leads uncultivated\nminds who are only depraved by the refinements which prevail in the\nsociety, where they are trodden under foot by the rich, to domineer\nover them to revenge the insults that they are obliged to bear from\ntheir superiours.\n\nThis habitual cruelty is first caught at school, where it is one of\nthe rare sports of the boys to torment the miserable brutes that\nfall in their way.  The transition, as they grow up, from barbarity\nto brutes to domestic tyranny over wives, children, and servants,\nis very easy.  Justice, or even benevolence, will not be a powerful\nspring of action, unless it extend to the whole creation; nay, I\nbelieve that it may be delivered as an axiom, that those who can\nsee pain, unmoved, will soon learn to inflict it.\n\nThe vulgar are swayed by present feelings, and the habits which\nthey have accidentally acquired; but on partial feelings much\ndependence cannot be placed, though they be just; for, when they\nare not invigorated by reflection, custom weakens them, till they\nare scarcely felt.  The sympathies of our nature are strengthened\nby pondering cogitations, and deadened by thoughtless use.\nMacbeth's heart smote him more for one murder, the first, than for\na hundred subsequent ones, which were necessary to back it.  But,\nwhen I used the epithet vulgar, I did not mean to confine my remark\nto the poor, for partial humanity, founded on present sensations or\nwhim, is quite as conspicuous, if not more so, amongst the rich.\n\nThe lady who sheds tears for the bird starved in a snare, and\nexecrates the devils in the shape of men, who goad to madness the\npoor ox, or whip the patient ass, tottering under a burden above\nits strength, will, nevertheless, keep her coachman and horses\nwhole hours waiting for her, when the sharp frost bites, or the\nrain beats against the well-closed windows which do not admit a\nbreath of air to tell her how roughly the wind blows without.  And\nshe who takes her dogs to bed, and nurses them with a parade of\nsensibility, when sick, will suffer her babes to grow up crooked in\na nursery.  This illustration of my argument is drawn from a matter\nof fact.  The woman whom I allude to was handsome, reckoned very\nhandsome, by those who do not miss the mind when the face is plump\nand fair; but her understanding had not been led from female duties\nby literature, nor her innocence debauched by knowledge.  No, she\nwas quite feminine, according to the masculine acceptation of the\nword; and, so far from loving these spoiled brutes that filled the\nplace which her children ought to have occupied, she only lisped\nout a pretty mixture of French and English nonsense, to please the\nmen who flocked round her.  The wife, mother, and human creature,\nwere all swallowed up by the factitious character, which an\nimproper education, and the selfish vanity of beauty, had produced.\n\nI do not like to make a distinction without a difference, and I own\nthat I have been as much disgusted by the fine lady who took her\nlap-dog to her bosom, instead of her child; as by the ferocity of a\nman, who, beating his horse, declared, that he knew as well when he\ndid wrong as a Christian.\n\nThis brood of folly shows how mistaken they are who, if they allow\nwomen to leave their harams, do not cultivate their understanding,\nin order to plant virtues in their hearts.  For had they sense,\nthey might acquire that domestic taste which would lead them to\nlove with reasonable subordination their whole family, from the\nhusband to the house-dog; nor would they ever insult humanity in\nthe person of the most menial servant, by paying more attention to\nthe comfort of a brute, than to that of a fellow-creature.\n\nMy observations on national education are obviously hints; but I\nprincipally wish to enforce the necessity of educating the sexes\ntogether to perfect both, and of making children sleep at home,\nthat they may learn to love home; yet to make private support\ninstead of smothering public affections, they should be sent to\nschool to mix with a number of equals, for only by the jostlings of\nequality can we form a just opinion of ourselves.\n\nTo render mankind more virtuous, and happier of course, both sexes\nmust act from the same principle; but how can that be expected when\nonly one is allowed to see the reasonableness of it?  To render\nalso the social compact truly equitable, and in order to spread\nthose enlightening principles, which alone can meliorate the fate\nof man, women must be allowed to found their virtue on knowledge,\nwhich is scarcely possible unless they be educated by the same\npursuits as men.  For they are now made so inferiour by ignorance\nand low desires, as not to deserve to be ranked with them; or, by\nthe serpentine wrigglings of cunning they mount the tree of\nknowledge and only acquire sufficient to lead men astray.\n\nIt is plain from the history of all nations, that women cannot be\nconfined to merely domestic pursuits, for they will not fulfil\nfamily duties, unless their minds take a wider range, and whilst\nthey are kept in ignorance, they become in the same proportion, the\nslaves of pleasure as they are the slaves of man.  Nor can they be\nshut out of great enterprises, though the narrowness of their minds\noften make them mar what they are unable to comprehend.\n\nThe libertinism, and even the virtues of superior men, will always\ngive women, of some description, great power over them; and these\nweak women, under the influence of childish passions and selfish\nvanity, will throw a false light over the objects which the very\nmen view with their eyes, who ought to enlighten their judgment.\nMen of fancy, and those sanguine characters who mostly hold the\nhelm of human affairs, in general, relax in the society of women;\nand surely I need not cite to the most superficial reader of\nhistory, the numerous examples of vice and oppression which the\nprivate intrigues of female favourites have produced; not to dwell\non the mischief that naturally arises from the blundering\ninterposition of well-meaning folly.  For in the transactions of\nbusiness it is much better to have to deal with a knave than a\nfool, because a knave adheres to some plan; and any plan of reason\nmay be seen through much sooner than a sudden flight of folly.  The\npower which vile and foolish women have had over wise men, who\npossessed sensibility, is notorious; I shall only mention one\ninstance.\n\nWhoever drew a more exalted female character than Rousseau?  though\nin the lump he constantly endeavoured to degrade the sex.  And why\nwas he thus anxious?  Truly to justify to himself the affection\nwhich weakness and virtue had made him cherish for that fool\nTheresa.  He could not raise her to the common level of her sex;\nand therefore he laboured to bring woman down to her's.  He found\nher a convenient humble companion, and pride made him determine to\nfind some superior virtues in the being whom he chose to live with;\nbut did not her conduct during his life, and after his death,\nclearly show how grossly he was mistaken who called her a celestial\ninnocent.  Nay, in the bitterness of his heart, he himself laments,\nthat when his bodily infirmities made him no longer treat her like\na woman, she ceased to have an affection for him.  And it was very\nnatural that she should, for having so few sentiments in common,\nwhen the sexual tie was broken, what was to hold her?  To hold her\naffection whose sensibility was confined to one sex, nay, to one\nman, it requires sense to turn sensibility into the broad channel\nof humanity: many women have not mind enough to have an affection\nfor a woman, or a friendship for a man.  But the sexual weakness\nthat makes woman depend on man for a subsistence, produces a kind\nof cattish affection, which leads a wife to purr about her husband,\nas she would about any man who fed and caressed her.\n\nMen, are however, often gratified by this kind of fondness which is\nconfined in a beastly manner to themselves, but should they ever\nbecome more virtuous, they will wish to converse at their fire-side\nwith a friend, after they cease to play with a mistress.  Besides,\nunderstanding is necessary to give variety and interest to sensual\nenjoyments, for low, indeed, in the intellectual scale, is the mind\nthat can continue to love when neither virtue nor sense give a\nhuman appearance to an animal appetite.  But sense will always\npreponderate; and if women are not, in general, brought more on a\nlevel with men, some superior women, like the Greek courtezans will\nassemble the men of abilities around them, and draw from their\nfamilies many citizens, who would have stayed at home, had their\nwives had more sense, or the graces which result from the exercise\nof the understanding and fancy, the legitimate parents of taste.  A\nwoman of talents, if she be not absolutely ugly, will always obtain\ngreat power, raised by the weakness of her sex; and in proportion\nas men acquire virtue and delicacy: by the exertion of reason, they\nwill look for both in women, but they can only acquire them in the\nsame way that men do.\n\nIn France or Italy have the women confined themselves to domestic\nlife? though they have not hitherto had a political existence, yet,\nhave they not illicitly had great sway? corrupting themselves and\nthe men with whose passions they played?  In short, in whatever\nlight I view the subject, reason and experience convince me, that\nthe only method of leading women to fulfil their peculiar duties,\nis to free them from all restraint by allowing them to participate\nthe inherent rights of mankind.\n\nMake them free, and they will quickly become wise and virtuous, as\nmen become more so; for the improvement must be mutual, or the\njustice which one half of the human race are obliged to submit to,\nretorting on their oppressors, the virtue of man will be worm-eaten\nby the insect whom he keeps under his feet.\n\nLet men take their choice, man and woman were made for each other,\nthough not to become one being; and if they will not improve women,\nthey will deprave them!\n\nI speak of the improvement and emancipation of the whole sex, for I\nknow that the behaviour of a few women, who by accident, or\nfollowing a strong bent of nature, have acquired a portion of\nknowledge superior to that of the rest of their sex, has often been\nover-bearing; but there have been instances of women who, attaining\nknowledge, have not discarded modesty, nor have they always\npedantically appeared to despise the ignorance which they laboured\nto disperse in their own minds.  The exclamations then which any\nadvice respecting female learning, commonly produces, especially\nfrom pretty women, often arise from envy.  When they chance to see\nthat even the lustre of their eyes, and the flippant sportiveness\nof refined coquetry will not always secure them attention, during a\nwhole evening, should a woman of a more cultivated understanding\nendeavour to give a rational turn to the conversation, the common\nsource of consolation is, that such women seldom get husbands.\nWhat arts have I not seen silly women use to interrupt by\nFLIRTATION, (a very significant word to describe such a manoeuvre)\na rational conversation, which made the men forget that they were\npretty women.\n\nBut, allowing what is very natural to man--that the possession of\nrare abilities is really calculated to excite over-weening pride,\ndisgusting in both men and women--in what a state of inferiority\nmust the female faculties have rusted when such a small portion of\nknowledge as those women attained, who have sneeringly been termed\nlearned women, could be singular? Sufficiently so to puff up the\npossessor, and excite envy in her contemporaries, and some of the\nother sex.  Nay, has not a little rationality exposed many women to\nthe severest censure?  I advert to well known-facts, for I have\nfrequently heard women ridiculed, and every little weakness\nexposed, only because they adopted the advice of some medical men,\nand deviated from the beaten track in their mode of treating their\ninfants.  I have actually heard this barbarous aversion to\ninnovation carried still further, and a sensible woman stigmatized\nas an unnatural mother, who has thus been wisely solicitous to\npreserve the health of her children, when in the midst of her care\nshe has lost one by some of the casualties of infancy which no\nprudence can ward off.  Her acquaintance have observed, that this\nwas the consequence of new-fangled notions--the new-fangled notions\nof ease and cleanliness.  And those who, pretending to experience,\nthough they have long adhered to prejudices that have, according to\nthe opinion of the most sagacious physicians, thinned the human\nrace, almost rejoiced at the disaster that gave a kind of sanction\nto prescription.\n\nIndeed, if it were only on this account, the national education of\nwomen is of the utmost consequence; for what a number of human\nsacrifices are made to that moloch, prejudice!  And in how many\nways are children destroyed by the lasciviousness of man?  The want\nof natural affection in many women, who are drawn from their duty\nby the admiration of men, and the ignorance of others, render the\ninfancy of man a much more perilous state than that of brutes; yet\nmen are unwilling to place women in situations proper to enable\nthem to acquire sufficient understanding to know how even to nurse\ntheir babes.\n\nSo forcibly does this truth strike me, that I would rest the whole\ntendency of my reasoning upon it; for whatever tends to\nincapacitate the maternal character, takes woman out of her sphere.\n\nBut it is vain to expect the present race of weak mothers either to\ntake that reasonable care of a child's body, which is necessary to\nlay the foundation of a good constitution, supposing that it do not\nsuffer for the sins of its fathers; or to manage its temper so\njudiciously that the child will not have, as it grows up, to throw\noff all that its mother, its first instructor, directly or\nindirectly taught, and unless the mind have uncommon vigour,\nwomanish follies will stick to the character throughout life.  The\nweakness of the mother will be visited on the children!  And whilst\nwomen are educated to rely on their husbands for judgment, this\nmust ever be the consequence, for there is no improving an\nunderstanding by halves, nor can any being act wisely from\nimitation, because in every circumstance of life there is a kind of\nindividuality, which requires an exertion of judgment to modify\ngeneral rules.  The being who can think justly in one track, will\nsoon extend its intellectual empire; and she who has sufficient\njudgment to manage her children, will not submit right or wrong, to\nher husband, or patiently to the social laws which makes a\nnonentity of a wife.\n\nIn public schools women, to guard against the errors of ignorance,\nshould be taught the elements of anatomy and medicine, not only to\nenable them to take proper care of their own health, but to make\nthem rational nurses of their infants, parents, and husbands; for\nthe bills of mortality are swelled by the blunders of self-willed\nold women, who give nostrums of their own, without knowing any\nthing of the human frame.  It is likewise proper, only in a\ndomestic view, to make women, acquainted with the anatomy of the\nmind, by allowing the sexes to associate together in every pursuit;\nand by leading them to observe the progress of the human\nunderstanding in the improvement of the sciences and arts; never\nforgetting the science of morality, nor the study of the political\nhistory of mankind.\n\nA man has been termed a microcosm; and every family might also be\ncalled a state.  States, it is true, have mostly been governed by\narts that disgrace the character of man; and the want of a just\nconstitution, and equal laws, have so perplexed the notions of the\nworldly wise, that they more than question the reasonableness of\ncontending for the rights of humanity.  Thus morality, polluted in\nthe national reservoir, sends off streams of vice to corrupt the\nconstituent parts of the body politic; but should more noble, or\nrather more just principles regulate the laws, which ought to be\nthe government of society, and not those who execute them, duty\nmight become the rule of private conduct.\n\nBesides, by the exercise of their bodies and minds, women would\nacquire that mental activity so necessary in the maternal\ncharacter, united with the fortitude that distinguishes steadiness\nof conduct from the obstinate perverseness of weakness.  For it is\ndangerous to advise the indolent to be steady, because they\ninstantly become rigorous, and to save themselves trouble, punish\nwith severity faults that the patient fortitude of reason might\nhave prevented.\n\nBut fortitude presupposes strength of mind, and is strength of mind\nto be acquired by indolent acquiescence?  By asking advice instead\nof exerting the judgment?  By obeying through fear, instead of\npractising the forbearance, which we all stand in need of\nourselves?  The conclusion which I wish to draw is obvious; make\nwomen rational creatures and free citizens, and they will quickly\nbecome good wives, and mothers; that is--if men do not neglect the\nduties of husbands and fathers.\n\nDiscussing the advantages which a public and private education\ncombined, as I have sketched, might rationally be expected to\nproduce, I have dwelt most on such as are particularly relative to\nthe female world, because I think the female world oppressed; yet\nthe gangrene which the vices, engendered by oppression have\nproduced, is not confined to the morbid part, but pervades society\nat large;  so that when I wish to see my sex become more like moral\nagents, my heart bounds with the anticipation of the general\ndiffusion of that sublime contentment which only morality can\ndiffuse.\n\n\nCHAPTER 13.\n\nSOME INSTANCES OF THE FOLLY WHICH THE IGNORANCE OF WOMEN GENERATES;\nWITH CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS ON THE MORAL IMPROVEMENT THAT A\nREVOLUTION IN FEMALE MANNERS MIGHT NATURALLY BE EXPECTED TO\nPRODUCE.\n\nThere are many follies, in some degree, peculiar to women:  sins\nagainst reason, of commission, as well as of omission; but all\nflowing from ignorance or prejudice, I shall only point out such as\nappear to be injurious to their moral character.  And in\nanimadverting on them, I wish especially to prove, that the\nweakness of mind and body, which men have endeavoured by various\nmotives to perpetuate, prevents their discharging the peculiar duty\nof their sex:  for when weakness of body will not permit them to\nsuckle their children, and weakness of mind makes them spoil their\ntempers--is woman in a natural state?\n\nSECTION 13.1.\n\nOne glaring instance of the weakness which proceeds from ignorance,\nfirst claims attention, and calls for severe reproof.\n\nIn this metropolis a number of lurking leeches infamously gain a\nsubsistence by practising on the credulity of women, pretending to\ncast nativities, to use the technical phrase; and many females who,\nproud of their rank and fortune, look down on the vulgar with\nsovereign contempt, show by this credulity, that the distinction is\narbitrary, and that they have not sufficiently cultivated their\nminds to rise above vulgar prejudices.  Women, because they have\nnot been led to consider the knowledge of their duty as the one\nthing necessary to know, or, to live in the present moment by the\ndischarge of it, are very anxious to peep into futurity, to learn\nwhat they have to expect to render life interesting, and to break\nthe vacuum of ignorance.  I must be allowed to expostulate\nseriously with the ladies, who follow these idle inventions; for\nladies, mistresses of families, are not ashamed to drive in their\nown carriages to the door of the cunning man.  And if any of them\nshould peruse this work, I entreat them to answer to their own\nhearts the following questions, not forgetting that they are in the\npresence of God.\n\nDo you believe that there is but one God, and that he is powerful,\nwise, and good?\n\nDo you believe that all things were created by him, and that all\nbeings are dependent on him?\n\nDo you rely on his wisdom, so conspicuous in his works, and in your\nown frame, and are you convinced, that he has ordered all things\nwhich do not come under the cognizance of your senses, in the same\nperfect harmony, to fulfil his designs?\n\nDo you acknowledge that the power of looking into futurity and\nseeing things that are not, as if they were, is an attribute of the\nCreator?  And should he, by an impression on the minds of his\ncreatures, think fit to impart to them some event hid in the shades\nof time, yet unborn, to whom would the secret be revealed by\nimmediate inspiration?  The opinion of ages will answer this\nquestion--to reverend old men, to people distinguished for eminent\npiety.\n\nThe oracles of old were thus delivered by priests dedicated to the\nservice of the God, who was supposed to inspire them.  The glare of\nworldly pomp which surrounded these impostors, and the respect paid\nto them by artful politicians, who knew how to avail themselves of\nthis useful engine to bend the necks of the strong under the\ndominion of the cunning, spread a sacred mysterious veil of\nsanctity over their lies and abominations.  Impressed by such\nsolemn devotional parade, a Greek or Roman lady might be excused,\nif she inquired of the oracle, when she was anxious to pry into\nfuturity, or inquire about some dubious event:  and her inquiries,\nhowever contrary to reason, could not be reckoned impious.  But,\ncan the professors of Christianity ward off that imputation?  Can a\nChristian suppose, that the favourites of the most High, the highly\nfavoured would be obliged to lurk in disguise, and practise the\nmost dishonest tricks to cheat silly women out of the money, which\nthe poor cry for in vain?\n\nSay not that such questions are an insult to common sense for it is\nyour own conduct, O ye foolish women! which throws an odium on your\nsex!  And these reflections should make you shudder at your\nthoughtlessness, and irrational devotion, for I do not suppose that\nall of you laid aside your religion, such as it is, when you\nentered those mysterious dwellings.  Yet, as I have throughout\nsupposed myself talking to ignorant women, for ignorant ye are in\nthe most emphatical sense of the word, it would be absurd to reason\nwith you on the egregious folly of desiring to know what the\nSupreme Wisdom has concealed.\n\nProbably you would not understand me, were I to attempt to show you\nthat it would be absolutely inconsistent with the grand purpose of\nlife, that of rendering human creatures wise and virtuous:  and\nthat, were it sanctioned by God, it would disturb the order\nestablished in creation; and if it be not sanctioned by God, do you\nexpect to hear truth?  Can events be foretold, events which have\nnot yet assumed a body to become subject to mortal inspection, can\nthey be foreseen by a vicious worldling, who pampers his appetites\nby preying on the foolish ones?\n\nPerhaps, however, you devoutly believe in the devil, and imagine,\nto shift the question, that he may assist his votaries? but if\nreally respecting the power of such a being, an enemy to goodness\nand to God, can you go to church after having been under such an\nobligation to him.  From these delusions to those still more\nfashionable deceptions, practised by the whole tribe of\nmagnetisers, the transition is very natural.  With respect to them,\nit is equally proper to ask women a few questions.\n\nDo you know any thing of the construction of the human frame?  If\nnot, it is proper that you should be told, what every child ought\nto know, that when its admirable economy has been disturbed by\nintemperance or indolence, I speak not of violent disorders, but of\nchronical diseases, it must be brought into a healthy state again\nby slow degrees, and if the functions of life have not been\nmaterially injured, regimen, another word for temperance, air,\nexercise, and a few medicines prescribed by persons who have\nstudied the human body, are the only human means, yet discovered,\nof recovering that inestimable blessing health, that will bear\ninvestigation.\n\nDo you then believe, that these magnetisers, who, by hocus pocus\ntricks, pretend, to work a miracle, are delegated by God, or\nassisted by the solver of all these kind of difficulties--the\ndevil.\n\nDo they, when they put to flight, as it is said, disorders that\nhave baffled the powers of medicine, work in conformity to the\nlight of reason? Or do they effect these wonderful cures by\nsupernatural aid?\n\nBy a communication, an adept may answer, with the world of spirits.\nA noble privilege, it must be allowed.  Some of the ancients\nmention familiar demons, who guarded them from danger, by kindly\nintimating (we cannot guess in what manner,) when any danger was\nnigh; or pointed out what they ought to undertake.  Yet the men who\nlaid claim to this privilege, out of the order of nature, insisted,\nthat it was the reward or consequence of superior temperance and\npiety.  But the present workers of wonders are not raised above\ntheir fellows by superior temperance or sanctity.  They do not cure\nfor the love of God, but money.  These are the priests of quackery,\nthough it be true they have not the convenient expedient of selling\nmasses for souls in purgatory, nor churches, where they can display\ncrutches, and models of limbs made sound by a touch or a word.\n\nI am not conversant with the technical terms, nor initiated into\nthe arcana, therefore I may speak improperly; but it is clear, that\nmen who will not conform to the law of reason, and earn a\nsubsistence in an honest way, by degrees, are very fortunate in\nbecoming acquainted with such obliging spirits.  We cannot, indeed,\ngive them credit for either great sagacity or goodness, else they\nwould have chosen more noble instruments, when they wished to show\nthemselves the benevolent friends of man.\n\nIt is, however, little short of blasphemy to pretend to such power.\n\n>From the whole tenor of the dispensations of Providence, it appears\nevident to sober reason, that certain vices produce certain\neffects: and can any one so grossly insult the wisdom of God, as to\nsuppose, that a miracle will be allowed to disturb his general\nlaws, to restore to health the intemperate and vicious, merely to\nenable them to pursue the same course with impunity?  Be whole, and\nsin no more, said Jesus.  And are greater miracles to be performed\nby those who do not follow his footsteps, who healed the body to\nreach the mind?\n\nThe mentioning of the name of Christ, after such vile impostors may\ndisplease some of my readers--I respect their warmth; but let them\nnot forget, that the followers of these delusions bear his name,\nand profess to be the disciples of him, who said, by their works we\nshould know who were the children of God or the servants of sin.  I\nallow that it is easier to touch the body of a saint, or to be\nmagnetised, than to restrain our appetites or govern our passions;\nbut health of body or mind can only be recovered by these means, or\nwe make the Supreme Judge partial and revengeful.\n\nIs he a man, that he should change, or punish out of resentment?\nHe--the common father, wounds but to heal, says reason, and our\nirregularities producing certain consequences, we are forcibly\nshown the nature of vice; that thus learning to know good from\nevil, by experience, we may hate one and love the other, in\nproportion to the wisdom which we attain.  The poison contains the\nantidote; and we either reform our evil habits, and cease to sin\nagainst our own bodies, to use the forcible language of scripture,\nor a premature death, the punishment of sin, snaps the thread of\nlife.\n\nHere an awful stop is put to our inquiries.  But, why should I\nconceal my sentiments?  Considering the attributes of God, I\nbelieve, that whatever punishment may follow, will tend, like the\nanguish of disease, to show the malignity of vice, for the purpose\nof reformation.  Positive punishment appears so contrary to the\nnature of God, discoverable in all his works, and in our own\nreason, that I could sooner believe that the Deity paid no\nattention to the conduct of men, than that he punished without the\nbenevolent design of reforming.\n\nTo suppose only, that an all-wise and powerful Being, as good as he\nis great, should create a being, foreseeing, that after fifty or\nsixty years of feverish existence, it would be plunged into never\nending woe--is blasphemy.  On what will the worm feed that is never\nto die?  On folly, on ignorance, say ye--I should blush indignantly\nat drawing the natural conclusion, could I insert it, and wish to\nwithdraw myself from the wing of my God!  On such a supposition, I\nspeak with reverence, he would be a consuming fire.  We should\nwish, though vainly, to fly from his presence when fear absorbed\nlove, and darkness involved all his counsels.\n\nI know that many devout people boast of submitting to the Will of\nGod blindly, as to an arbitrary sceptre or rod, on the same\nprinciple as the Indians worship the devil.  In other words, like\npeople in the common concerns of life, they do homage to power, and\ncringe under the foot that can crush them.  Rational religion, on\nthe contrary, is a submission to the will of a being so perfectly\nwise, that all he wills must be directed by the proper motive--must\nbe reasonable.\n\nAnd, if thus we respect God, can we give credit to the mysterious\ninsinuations which insult his laws?  Can we believe, though it\nshould stare us in the face, that he would work a miracle to\nauthorize confusion by sanctioning an error?  Yet we must either\nallow these impious conclusions, or treat with contempt every\npromise to restore health to a diseased body by supernatural means,\nor to foretell, the incidents that can only be foreseen by God.\n\nSECTION 13.2.\n\nAnother instance of that feminine weakness of character, often\nproduced by a confined education, is a romantic twist of the mind,\nwhich has been very properly termed SENTIMENTAL.\n\nWomen, subjected by ignorance to their sensations, and only taught\nto look for happiness in love, refine on sensual feelings, and\nadopt metaphysical notions respecting that passion, which lead them\nshamefully to neglect the duties of life, and frequently in the\nmidst of these sublime refinements they plunge into actual vice.\n\nThese are the women who are amused by the reveries of the stupid\nnovelists, who, knowing little of human nature, work up stale\ntales, and describe meretricious scenes, all retailed in a\nsentimental jargon, which equally tend to corrupt the taste, and\ndraw the heart aside from its daily duties.  I do not mention the\nunderstanding, because never having been exercised, its slumbering\nenergies rest inactive, like the lurking particles of fire which\nare supposed universally to pervade matter.\n\nFemales, in fact, denied all political privileges, and not allowed,\nas married women, excepting in criminal cases, a civil existence,\nhave their attention naturally drawn from the interest of the whole\ncommunity to that of the minute parts, though the private duty of\nany member of society must be very imperfectly performed, when not\nconnected with the general good.  The mighty business of female\nlife is to please, and, restrained from entering into more\nimportant concerns by political and civil oppression, sentiments\nbecome events, and reflection deepens what it should, and would\nhave effaced, if the understanding had been allowed to take a wider\nrange.\n\nBut, confined to trifling employments, they naturally imbibe\nopinions which the only kind of reading calculated to interest an\ninnocent frivolous mind, inspires.  Unable to grasp any thing\ngreat, is it surprising that they find the reading of history a\nvery dry task, and disquisitions addressed to the understanding,\nintolerably tedious, and almost unintelligible?  Thus are they\nnecessarily dependent on the novelist for amusement.  Yet, when I\nexclaim against novels, I mean when contrasted with those works\nwhich exercise the understanding and regulate the imagination.  For\nany kind of reading I think better than leaving a blank still a\nblank, because the mind must receive a degree of enlargement, and\nobtain a little strength by a slight exertion of its thinking\npowers; besides, even the productions that are only addressed to\nthe imagination, raise the reader a little above the gross\ngratification of appetites, to which the mind has not given a shade\nof delicacy.\n\nThis observation is the result of experience; for I have known\nseveral notable women, and one in particular, who was a very good\nwoman--as good as such a narrow mind would allow her to be, who\ntook care that her daughters (three in number) should never see a\nnovel.  As she was a woman of fortune and fashion, they had various\nmasters to attend them, and a sort of menial governess to watch\ntheir footsteps.  From their masters they learned how tables,\nchairs, etc. were called in French and Italian; but as the few\nbooks thrown in their way were far above their capacities, or\ndevotional, they neither acquired ideas nor sentiments, and passed\ntheir time, when not compelled to repeat WORDS, in dressing,\nquarrelling with each other, or conversing with their maids by\nstealth, till they were brought into company as marriageable.\n\nTheir mother, a widow, was busy in the mean time in keeping up her\nconnexions, as she termed a numerous acquaintance lest her girls\nshould want a proper introduction into the great world.  And these\nyoung ladies, with minds vulgar in every sense of the word, and\nspoiled tempers, entered life puffed up with notions of their own\nconsequence, and looking down with contempt on those who could not\nvie with them in dress and parade.\n\nWith respect to love, nature, or their nurses, had taken care to\nteach them the physical meaning of the word; and, as they had few\ntopics of conversation, and fewer refinements of sentiment, they\nexpressed their gross wishes not in very delicate phrases, when\nthey spoke freely, talking of matrimony.\n\nCould these girls have been injured by the perusal of novels?  I\nalmost forgot a shade in the character of one of them; she affected\na simplicity bordering on folly, and with a simper would utter the\nmost immodest remarks and questions, the full meaning of which she\nhad learned whilst secluded from the world, and afraid to speak in\nher mother's presence, who governed with a high hand;  they were\nall educated, as she prided herself, in a most exemplary manner;\nand read their chapters and psalms before breakfast, never touching\na silly novel.\n\nThis is only one instance; but I recollect many other women who,\nnot led by degrees to proper studies, and not permitted to choose\nfor themselves, have indeed been overgrown children; or have\nobtained, by mixing in the world, a little of what is termed common\nsense;  that is, a distinct manner of seeing common occurrences, as\nthey stand detached:  but what deserves the name of intellect, the\npower of gaining general or abstract ideas, or even intermediate\nones, was out of the question.  Their minds were quiescent, and\nwhen they were not roused by sensible objects and employments of\nthat kind, they were low-spirited, would cry, or go to sleep.\n\nWhen, therefore, I advise my sex not to read such flimsy works, it\nis to induce them to read something superior; for I coincide in\nopinion with a sagacious man, who, having a daughter and niece\nunder his care, pursued a very different plan with each.\n\nThe niece, who had considerable abilities, had, before she was left\nto his guardianship, been indulged in desultory reading.  Her he\nendeavoured to lead, and did lead, to history and moral essays; but\nhis daughter whom a fond weak mother had indulged, and who\nconsequently was averse to every thing like application, he allowed\nto read novels;  and used to justify his conduct by saying, that if\nshe ever attained a relish for reading them, he should have some\nfoundation to work upon; and that erroneous opinions were better\nthan none at all.\n\nIn fact, the female mind has been so totally neglected, that\nknowledge was only to be acquired from this muddy source, till from\nreading novels some women of superior talents learned to despise\nthem.\n\nThe best method, I believe, that can be adopted to correct a\nfondness for novels is to ridicule them;  not indiscriminately, for\nthen it would have little effect; but, if a judicious person, with\nsome turn for humour, would read several to a young girl, and point\nout, both by tones and apt comparisons with pathetic incidents and\nheroic characters in history, how foolishly and ridiculously they\ncaricatured human nature, just opinions might be substituted\ninstead of romantic sentiments.\n\nIn one respect, however, the majority of both sexes resemble, and\nequally show a want of taste and modesty.  Ignorant women, forced\nto be chaste to preserve their reputation, allow their imagination\nto revel in the unnatural and meretricious scenes sketched by the\nnovel writers of the day, slighting as insipid the sober dignity\nand matronly grace of history,* whilst men carry the same vitiated\ntaste into life, and fly for amusement to the wanton, from the\nunsophisticated charms of virtue, and the grave respectability of\nsense.\n\n(*Footnote.  I am not now alluding to that superiority of mind\nwhich leads to the creation of ideal beauty, when life surveyed\nwith a penetrating eye, appears a tragi-comedy, in which little can\nbe seen to satisfy the heart without the help of fancy.)\n\nBesides, the reading of novels makes women, and particularly ladies\nof fashion, very fond of using strong expressions and superlatives\nin conversation; and, though the dissipated artificial life which\nthey lead prevents their cherishing any strong legitimate passion,\nthe language of passion in affected tones slips for ever from their\nglib tongues, and every trifle produces those phosphoric bursts\nwhich only mimick in the dark the flame of passion.\n\nSECTION 13.3.\n\nIgnorance and the mistaken cunning that nature sharpens in weak\nheads, as a principle of self-preservation, render women very fond\nof dress, and produce all the vanity which such a fondness may\nnaturally be expected to generate, to the exclusion of emulation\nand magnanimity.\n\nI agree with Rousseau, that the physical part of the art of\npleasing consists in ornaments, and for that very reason I should\nguard girls against the contagious fondness for dress so common to\nweak women, that they may not rest in the physical part.  Yet, weak\nare the women who imagine that they can long please without the aid\nof the mind; or, in other words, without the moral art of pleasing.\nBut the moral art, if it be not a profanation to use the word art,\nwhen alluding to the grace which is an effect of virtue, and not\nthe motive of action, is never to be found with ignorance; the\nsportiveness of innocence, so pleasing to refined libertines of\nboth sexes, is widely different in its essence from this superior\ngracefulness.\n\nA strong inclination for external ornaments ever appears in\nbarbarous states, only the men not the women adorn themselves; for\nwhere women are allowed to be so far on a level with men, society\nhas advanced at least one step in civilization.\n\nThe attention to dress, therefore, which has been thought a sexual\npropensity, I think natural to mankind.  But I ought to express\nmyself with more precision.  When the mind is not sufficiently\nopened to take pleasure in reflection, the body will be adorned\nwith sedulous care; and ambition will appear in tattooing or\npainting it.\n\nSo far is the first inclination carried, that even the hellish yoke\nof slavery cannot stifle the savage desire of admiration which the\nblack heroes inherit from both their parents, for all the\nhardly-earned savings of a slave are commonly expended in a little\ntawdry finery.  And I have seldom known a good male or female\nservant that was not particularly fond of dress.  Their clothes\nwere their riches; and I argue from analogy, that the fondness for\ndress, so extravagant in females, arises from the same cause--want\nof cultivation of mind.  When men meet they converse about\nbusiness, politics, or literature; but, says Swift, \"how naturally\ndo women apply their hands to each others lappets and ruffles.\"\nAnd very natural it is--for they have not any business to interest\nthem, have not a taste for literature, and they find politics dry,\nbecause they have not acquired a love for mankind by turning their\nthoughts to the grand pursuits that exalt the human race and\npromote general happiness.\n\nBesides, various are the paths to power and fame, which by accident\nor choice men pursue, and though they jostle against each other,\nfor men of the same profession are seldom friends, yet there is a\nmuch greater number of their fellow-creatures with whom they never\nclash.  But women are very differently situated with respect to\neach other--for they are all rivals.\n\nBefore marriage it is their business to please men; and after, with\na few exceptions, they follow the same scent, with all the\npersevering pertinacity of instinct.  Even virtuous women never\nforget their sex in company, for they are for ever trying to make\nthemselves AGREEABLE.  A female beauty and a male wit, appear to be\nequally anxious to draw the attention of the company to themselves;\nand the animosity of contemporary wits is proverbial.\n\nIs it then surprising, that when the sole ambition of woman centres\nin beauty, and interest gives vanity additional force, perpetual\nrivalships should ensue?  They are all running the same race, and\nwould rise above the virtue of mortals if they did not view each\nother with a suspicious and even envious eye.\n\nAn immoderate fondness for dress, for pleasure and for sway, are\nthe passions of savages; the passions that occupy those uncivilized\nbeings who have not yet extended the dominion of the mind, or even\nlearned to think with the energy necessary to concatenate that\nabstract train of thought which produces principles.  And that\nwomen, from their education and the present state of civilized\nlife, are in the same condition, cannot, I think, be controverted.\nTo laugh at them then, or satirize the follies of a being who is\nnever to be allowed to act freely from the light of her own reason,\nis as absurd as cruel; for that they who are taught blindly to obey\nauthority, will endeavour cunningly to elude it, is most natural\nand certain.\n\nYet let it be proved, that they ought to obey man implicitly, and I\nshall immediately agree that it is woman's duty to cultivate a\nfondness for dress, in order to please, and a propensity to cunning\nfor her own preservation.\n\nThe virtues, however, which are supported by ignorance, must ever\nbe wavering--the house built on sand could not endure a storm.  It\nis almost unnecessary to draw the inference.  If women are to be\nmade virtuous by authority, which is a contradiction in terms, let\nthem be immured in seraglios and watched with a jealous eye.  Fear\nnot that the iron will enter into their souls--for the souls that\ncan bear such treatment are made of yielding materials, just\nanimated enough to give life to the body.\n\n\"Matter too soft a lasting mark to bear,\nAnd best distinguish'd by black, brown, or fair.\"\n\nThe most cruel wounds will of course soon heal, and they may still\npeople the world, and dress to please man--all the purposes which\ncertain celebrated writers have allowed that they were created to\nfill.\n\nSECTION 13.4.\n\nWomen are supposed to possess more sensibility, and even humanity,\nthan men, and their strong attachments and instantaneous emotions\nof compassion are given as proofs; but the clinging affection of\nignorance has seldom any thing noble in it, and may mostly be\nresolved into selfishness, as well as the affection of children and\nbrutes.  I have known many weak women whose sensibility was\nentirely engrossed by their husbands; and as for their humanity, it\nwas very faint indeed, or rather it was only a transient emotion of\ncompassion,  \"Humanity does not consist in a squeamish ear,\" says\nan eminent orator.  \"It belongs to the mind as well as the nerves.\"\n\nBut this kind of exclusive affection, though it degrade the\nindividual, should not be brought forward as a proof of the\ninferiority of the sex, because it is the natural consequence of\nconfined views:  for even women of superior sense, having their\nattention turned to little employments, and private plans, rarely\nrise to heroism, unless when spurred on by love; and love as an\nheroic passion, like genius, appears but once in an age.  I\ntherefore agree with the moralist who asserts, \"that women have\nseldom so much generosity as men;\" and that their narrow\naffections, to which justice and humanity are often sacrificed,\nrender the sex apparently inferior, especially as they are commonly\ninspired by men; but I contend, that the heart would expand as the\nunderstanding gained strength, if women were not depressed from\ntheir cradles.\n\nI know that a little sensibility and great weakness will produce a\nstrong sexual attachment, and that reason must cement friendship;\nconsequently I allow, that more friendship is to be found in the\nmale than the female world, and that men have a higher sense of\njustice.  The exclusive affections of women seem indeed to resemble\nCato's most unjust love for his country.  He wished to crush\nCarthage, not to save Rome, but to promote its vain glory; and in\ngeneral, it is to similar principles that humanity is sacrificed,\nfor genuine duties support each other.\n\nBesides, how can women be just or generous, when they are the\nslaves of injustice.\n\nSECTION 13.5.\n\nAs the rearing of children, that is, the laying a foundation of\nsound health both of body and mind in the rising generation, has\njustly been insisted on as the peculiar destination of woman, the\nignorance that incapacitates them must be contrary to the order of\nthings.  And I contend, that their minds can take in much more, and\nought to do so, or they will never become sensible mothers.  Many\nmen attend to the breeding of horses, and overlook the management\nof the stable, who would, strange want of sense and feeling! think\nthemselves degraded by paying any attention to the nursery; yet,\nhow many children are absolutely murdered by the ignorance of\nwomen!  But when they escape, and are neither destroyed by\nunnatural negligence nor blind fondness, how few are managed\nproperly with respect to the infant mind!  So that to break the\nspirit, allowed to become vicious at home, a child is sent to\nschool; and the methods taken there, which must be taken to keep a\nnumber of children in order, scatter the seeds of almost every vice\nin the soil thus forcibly torn up.\n\nI have sometimes compared the struggles of these poor children who\nought never to have felt restraint, nor would, had they been always\nheld in with an even hand, to the despairing plunges of a spirited\nfilly, which I have seen breaking on a strand;  its feet sinking\ndeeper and deeper in the sand every time it endeavoured to throw\nits rider, till at last it sullenly submitted.\n\nI have always found horses, an animal I am attached to, very\ntractable when treated with humanity and steadiness, so that I\ndoubt whether the violent methods taken to break them, do not\nessentially injure them; I am, however, certain that a child should\nnever be thus forcibly tamed after it has injudiciously been\nallowed to run wild; for every violation of justice and reason, in\nthe treatment of children, weakens their reason.  And, so early do\nthey catch a character, that the base of the moral character,\nexperience leads me to infer, is fixed before their seventh year,\nthe period during which women are allowed the sole management of\nchildren.  Afterwards it too often happens that half the business\nof education is to correct, and very imperfectly is it done, if\ndone hastily, the faults, which they would never have acquired if\ntheir mothers had had more understanding.\n\nOne striking instance of the folly of women must not be omitted.\nThe manner in which they treat servants in the presence of\nchildren, permitting them to suppose, that they ought to wait on\nthem, and bear their humours.  A child should always be made to\nreceive assistance from a man or woman as a favour; and, as the\nfirst lesson of independence, they should practically be taught, by\nthe example of their mother, not to require that personal\nattendance which it is an insult to humanity to require, when in\nhealth; and instead of being led to assume airs of consequence, a\nsense of their own weakness should first make them feel the natural\nequality of man.  Yet, how frequently have I indignantly heard\nservants imperiously called to put children to bed, and sent away\nagain and again, because master or miss hung about mamma, to stay a\nlittle longer.  Thus made slavishly to attend the little idol, all\nthose most disgusting humours were exhibited which characterize a\nspoiled child.\n\nIn short, speaking of the majority of mothers, they leave their\nchildren entirely to the care of servants: or, because they are\ntheir children, treat them as if they were little demi-gods, though\nI have always observed, that the women who thus idolize their\nchildren, seldom show common humanity to servants, or feel the\nleast tenderness for any children but their own.\n\nIt is, however, these exclusive affections, and an individual\nmanner of seeing things, produced by ignorance, which keep women\nfor ever at a stand, with respect to improvement, and make many of\nthem dedicate their lives to their children only to weaken their\nbodies and spoil their tempers, frustrating also any plan of\neducation that a more rational father may adopt; for unless a\nmother concurs, the father who restrains will ever be considered as\na tyrant.\n\nBut, fulfilling the duties of a mother, a woman with a sound\nconstitution, may still keep her person scrupulously neat, and\nassist to maintain her family, if necessary, or by reading and\nconversations with both sexes, indiscriminately, improve her mind.\nFor nature has so wisely ordered things, that did women suckle\ntheir children, they would preserve their own health, and there\nwould be such an interval between the birth of each child, that we\nshould seldom see a house full of babes.  And did they pursue a\nplan of conduct, and not waste their time in following the\nfashionable vagaries of dress, the management of their household\nand children need not shut them out from literature, nor prevent\ntheir attaching themselves to a science, with that steady eye which\nstrengthens the mind, or practising one of the fine arts that\ncultivate the taste.\n\nBut, visiting to display finery, card playing, and balls, not to\nmention the idle bustle of morning trifling, draw women from their\nduty, to render them insignificant, to render them pleasing,\naccording to the present acceptation of the word, to every man, but\ntheir husband.  For a round of pleasures in which the affections\nare not exercised, cannot be said to improve the understanding,\nthough it be erroneously called seeing the world; yet the heart is\nrendered cold and averse to duty, by such a senseless intercourse,\nwhich becomes necessary from habit, even when it has ceased to\namuse.\n\nBut, till more equality be established in society, till ranks are\nconfounded and women freed, we shall not see that dignified\ndomestic happiness, the simple grandeur of which cannot be relished\nby ignorant or vitiated minds; nor will the important task of\neducation ever be properly begun till the person of a woman is no\nlonger preferred to her mind.  For it would be as wise to expect\ncorn from tares, or figs from thistles, as that a foolish ignorant\nwoman should be a good mother.\n\nSECTION 13.6.\n\nIt is not necessary to inform the sagacious reader, now I enter on\nmy concluding reflections, that the discussion of this subject\nmerely consists in opening a few simple principles, and clearing\naway the rubbish which obscured them.  But, as all readers are not\nsagacious, I must be allowed to add some explanatory remarks to\nbring the subject home to reason--to that sluggish reason, which\nsupinely takes opinions on trust, and obstinately supports them to\nspare itself the labour of thinking.\n\nMoralists have unanimously agreed, that unless virtue be nursed by\nliberty, it will never attain due strength--and what they say of\nman I extend to mankind, insisting, that in all cases morals must\nbe fixed on immutable principles; and that the being cannot be\ntermed rational or virtuous, who obeys any authority but that of\nreason.\n\nTo render women truly useful members of society, I argue, that they\nshould be led, by having their understandings cultivated on a large\nscale, to acquire a rational affection for their country, founded\non knowledge, because it is obvious, that we are little interested\nabout what we do not understand.  And to render this general\nknowledge of due importance, I have endeavoured to show that\nprivate duties are never properly fulfilled, unless the\nunderstanding enlarges the heart; and that public virtue is only an\naggregate of private.  But, the distinctions established in society\nundermine both, by beating out the solid gold of virtue, till it\nbecomes only the tinsel-covering of vice; for, whilst wealth\nrenders a man more respectable than virtue, wealth will be sought\nbefore virtue; and, whilst women's persons are caressed, when a\nchildish simper shows an absence of mind--the mind will lie fallow.\nYet, true voluptuousness must proceed from the mind--for what can\nequal the sensations produced by mutual affection, supported by\nmutual respect?  What are the cold or feverish caresses of\nappetite, but sin embracing death, compared with the modest\noverflowings of a pure heart and exalted imagination?  Yes, let me\ntell the libertine of fancy when he despises understanding in\nwoman--that the mind, which he disregards, gives life to the\nenthusiastic affection from which rapture, short-lived as it is,\nalone can flow!  And, that, without virtue, a sexual attachment\nmust expire, like a tallow candle in the socket, creating\nintolerable disgust.  To prove this, I need only observe, that men\nwho have wasted great part of their lives with women, and with whom\nthey have sought for pleasure with eager thirst, entertain the\nmeanest opinion of the sex.  Virtue, true refiner of joy! if\nfoolish men were to fright thee from earth, in order to give loose\nto all their appetites without a check--some sensual wight of taste\nwould scale the heavens to invite thee back, to give a zest to\npleasure!\n\nThat women at present are by ignorance rendered foolish or vicious,\nis, I think, not to be disputed; and, that the most salutary\neffects tending to improve mankind, might be expected from a\nREVOLUTION in female manners, appears at least, with a face of\nprobability, to rise out of the observation.  For as marriage has\nbeen termed the parent of those endearing charities, which draw man\nfrom the brutal herd, the corrupting intercourse that wealth,\nidleness, and folly produce between the sexes, is more universally\ninjurious to morality, than all the other vices of mankind\ncollectively considered.  To adulterous lust the most sacred duties\nare sacrificed, because, before marriage, men, by a promiscuous\nintimacy with women, learned to consider love as a selfish\ngratification--learned to separate it not only from esteem, but\nfrom the affection merely built on habit, which mixes a little\nhumanity with it.  Justice and friendship are also set at defiance,\nand that purity of taste is vitiated, which would naturally lead a\nman to relish an artless display of affection, rather than affected\nairs.  But that noble simplicity of affection, which dares to\nappear unadorned, has few attractions for the libertine, though it\nbe the charm, which, by cementing the matrimonial tie, secures to\nthe pledges of a warmer passion the necessary parental attention;\nfor children will never be properly educated till friendship\nsubsists between parents.  Virtue flies from a house divided\nagainst itself--and a whole legion of devils take up their\nresidence there.\n\nThe affection of husbands and wives cannot be pure when they have\nso few sentiments in common, and when so little confidence is\nestablished at home, as must be the case when their pursuits are so\ndifferent.  That intimacy from which tenderness should flow, will\nnot, cannot subsist between the vicious.\n\nContending, therefore, that the sexual distinction, which men have\nso warmly insisted upon, is arbitrary, I have dwelt on an\nobservation, that several sensible men, with whom I have conversed\non the subject, allowed to be well founded; and it is simply this,\nthat the little chastity to be found amongst men, and consequent\ndisregard of modesty, tend to degrade both sexes; and further, that\nthe modesty of women, characterized as such, will often be only the\nartful veil of wantonness, instead of being the natural reflection\nof purity, till modesty be universally respected.\n\n>From the tyranny of man, I firmly believe, the greater number of\nfemale follies proceed; and the cunning, which I allow, makes at\npresent a part of their character, I likewise have repeatedly\nendeavoured to prove, is produced by oppression.  Were not\ndissenters, for instance, a class of people, with strict truth\ncharacterized as cunning?  And may I not lay some stress on this\nfact to prove, that when any power but reason curbs the free spirit\nof man, dissimulation is practised, and the various shifts of art\nare naturally called forth?  Great attention to decorum, which was\ncarried to a degree of scrupulosity, and all that puerile bustle\nabout trifles and consequential solemnity, which Butler's\ncaricature of a dissenter brings before the imagination, shaped\ntheir persons as well as their minds in the mould of prim\nlittleness.  I speak collectively, for I know how many ornaments to\nhuman nature have been enrolled amongst sectaries; yet, I assert,\nthat the same narrow prejudice for their sect, which women have for\ntheir families, prevailed in the dissenting part of the community,\nhowever worthy in other respects; and also that the same timid\nprudence, or headstrong efforts, often disgraced the exertions of\nboth.  Oppression thus formed many of the features of their\ncharacter perfectly to coincide with that of the oppressed half of\nmankind; for is it not notorious, that dissenters were like women,\nfond of deliberating together, and asking advice of each other,\ntill by a complication of little contrivances, some little end was\nbrought about?  A similar attention to preserve their reputation\nwas conspicuous in the dissenting and female world, and was\nproduced by a similar cause.\n\nAsserting the rights which women in common with men ought to\ncontend for, I have not attempted to extenuate their faults; but to\nprove them to be the natural consequence of their education and\nstation in society.  If so, it is reasonable to suppose, that they\nwill change their character, and correct their vices and follies,\nwhen they are allowed to be free in a physical, moral, and civil\nsense.\n\nLet woman share the rights, and she will emulate the virtues of\nman; for she must grow more perfect when emancipated, or justify\nthe authority that chains such a weak being to her duty.  If the\nlatter, it will be expedient to open a fresh trade with Russia for\nwhips; a present which a father should always make to his\nson-in-law on his wedding day, that a husband may keep his whole\nfamily in order by the same means; and without any violation of\njustice reign, wielding this sceptre, sole master of his house,\nbecause he is the only being in it who has reason; the divine,\nindefeasible, earthly sovereignty breathed into man by the Master\nof the universe.  Allowing this position, women have not any\ninherent rights to claim; and, by the same rule their duties\nvanish, for rights and duties are inseparable.\n\nBe just then, O ye men of understanding! and mark not more severely\nwhat women do amiss, than the vicious tricks of the horse or the\nass for whom ye provide provender, and allow her the privileges of\nignorance, to whom ye deny the rights of reason, or ye will be\nworse than Egyptian task-masters, expecting virtue where nature has\nnot given understanding!","title":"A Vindication of the Rights of Woman: With Strictures on Political and Moral Subjects","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":86490}