{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_53937/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_53937","id":"gutenberg_53937","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/53937","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Gender & Sexuality Studies","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Women's rights -- France"],"text":"Obvious printer errors have been repaired, but spelling has not been\nstandardized.\n\n\n\n\n    A WOMAN'S PHILOSOPHY OF WOMAN;\n\n    OR\n\n    WOMAN AFFRANCHISED.\n\n    AN ANSWER TO MICHELET, PROUDHON, GIRARDIN, LEGOUV\u00c9,\n    COMTE, AND OTHER MODERN INNOVATORS.\n\n    BY MADAME D'H\u00c9RICOURT.\n\n    Translated from the last Paris Edition\n\n    [Illustration]\n\n    NEW YORK:\n\n    _CARLETON, PUBLISHER, 413 BROADWAY._\n\n    M DCCC LXIV.\n\n\n\n\n    Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1864, by\n\n    G. W. CARLETON,\n\n    In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Southern District\n      of New York.\n\n\n    R. CRAIGHEAD,\n    Printer, Stereotyper, and Electrotyper,\n    Carton Building,\n    _81, 83, and 85 Centre Street_.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n    INTRODUCTION                                                        7\n\n    PREFACE                                                             9\n\n    CHAP.\n\n      I. MICHELET                                                      17\n\n     II. PROUDHON                                                      33\n\n    III. COMTE                                                        119\n\n     IV. LEGOUVE                                                      134\n\n      V. DE GIRARDIN                                                  155\n\n     VI. MODERN COMMUNISTS                                            167\n\n    VII. SUMMARY                                                      201\n\n\nPART II.\n\n    OBJECTIONS TO THE EMANCIPATION OF WOMAN                           211\n\n    NATURE AND FUNCTIONS OF WOMAN                                     224\n\n    LOVE; ITS FUNCTIONS IN HUMANITY                                   248\n\n    MARRIAGE                                                          270\n\n    SUMMARY OF PROPOSED REFORMS                                       294\n\n    APPEAL TO WOMEN                                                   314\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\nTO THE AMERICAN EDITION.\n\n\nThe general interest evinced in the theories of Michelet and other\nphilosophers concerning the functions and province of woman, and the\nlively opposition to these theories manifested in many quarters, have\ncalled forth an American translation of the present work. This remarkable\nbook of Madame d'H\u00e9ricourt on woman is conceded to be the best reply to\nthese philosophers extant. The work, intended by the author as \"a\nrefutation of the coarse indecency of Proudhon, and of the perfumed\npruriency of Michelet, and the other false friends and would-be champions\nof woman,\" has had a remarkable history. Published first at Brussels, it\nwas interdicted in France, and notice was given that all copies found\nwould be seized. Madame d'H\u00e9ricourt appealed to the censorship to know\nthe reason of this interdiction, and was informed in reply that the\nreason for such proceedings never was given. Not content with this, she\nwrote to Napoleon III, enclosing a copy of the work, and called his\nattention to the fact that a book by a French author could be suppressed\nin France without any reason being given for it, and without any chance\nbeing offered to the author to clear herself of the implied charge of\nimmorality. Immediately upon the reception of the letter, the Emperor\nwithdrew the interdiction.\n\nMadame d'H\u00e9ricourt is well known in France as an able contributor to\nvarious philosophic journals, and also as a member of the medical\nprofession, in which she holds a high and respected position. Her\nopinions are entitled to great weight, and will be welcomed as throwing\nmuch light on the practical question of the sphere of woman, which is\nbecoming one of increasing interest. The better to adapt the book to the\nAmerican public, it has been slightly abbreviated in portions of local\ninterest, referring chiefly to French legislation. It has been well\nreceived in England, as is testified by the following extract from the\n_London Critic_, one of the ablest of the English critical journals:\n\n   \"The work is calculated to do an immense service to French\n   society at the present time--just when the literature of the\n   country is on the verge of decay from the rottenness which is\n   eating to its very core. 'La Femme Affranchie' points out the\n   remedy to the social cancer which has gnawed away the vital\n   principle of domestic life in France, and caused that antagonism\n   between the sexes which foreigners behold with the most profound\n   amazement. Madame d'H\u00e9ricourt's bold and nervous arguments\n   completely destroy the brutal commonplaces of Proudhon as regards\n   the moral and intellectual capacity of women. She takes him on\n   his own ground, and to his medical propositions returns medical\n   objections of far greater weight and power, being more competent\n   to judge the question, as she has passed examinations as\n   'Maitresse sage femme' of 'La Clinique,' and received her diploma\n   as medical practitioner many years ago.\"\n\n\n\n\nAUTHOR'S PREFACE.\n\nTO MY READERS.\n\n\nReaders, male and female, I am about to tell you the end of this book,\nand the motives which caused me to undertake it, that you may not waste\nyour time in reading it, if its contents are not suited to your\nintellectual and moral temperament.\n\nMy end is to prove that woman has the same rights as man.\n\nTo claim, in consequence, her emancipation;\n\nLastly, to point out to the women who share my views, the principal\nmeasures that they must take to obtain justice.\n\nThe word emancipation giving room for equivocation, let us in the first\nplace establish its meaning.\n\nTo emancipate woman is not to acknowledge her right to use and abuse\nlove; such an emancipation is only the slavery of the passions; the use\nof the beauty and youth of woman by man; the use of man by woman for his\nfortune or credit.\n\nTo emancipate woman is to acknowledge and declare her free, the equal of\nman in the social and the moral law, and in labor.\n\nAt present, over the whole surface of the globe, woman, in certain\nrespects, is not subjected to the same moral law as man; her chastity is\ngiven over almost without restriction to the brutal passions of the other\nsex, and she often endures alone the consequences of a fault committed by\nboth.\n\nIn marriage, woman is a serf.\n\nIn public instruction, she is sacrificed.\n\nIn labor, she is made inferior.\n\nCivilly, she is _a_ minor.\n\nPolitically, she has no existence.\n\n_She is the equal of man only when punishment and the payment of taxes\nare in question._\n\nI claim the rights of woman, because it is time to make the nineteenth\ncentury ashamed of its culpable denial of justice to half the human\nspecies;\n\nBecause the state of inferiority in which we are held corrupts morals,\ndissolves society, deteriorates and enfeebles the race;\n\nBecause the progress of enlightenment, in which woman participates, has\ntransformed her in social power, and because this new power produces evil\nin default of the good which it is not permitted to do;\n\nBecause the time for according reforms has come, since women are\nprotesting against the order which oppresses them; some by disdain of\nlaws and prejudices; others by taking possession of contested positions,\nand by organizing themselves into societies to claim their share of human\nrights, as is done in America;\n\nLastly, because it seems to me useful to reply, _no longer with\nsentimentality_, but with vigor, to those men who, terrified by the\nemancipating movement, call to their aid false science to prove that\nwoman is outside the pale of right; and carry indecorum and the opposite\nof courage, even to insult, even to the most revolting outrages.\n\nReaders, male and female, several of the adversaries of the cause which I\ndefend, have carried the discussion into the domain of science, and have\nnot shrunk before the nudity of biological laws and anatomical details. I\npraise them for it; the body being respectable, there is no indecency in\nspeaking of the laws which govern it; but as it would be an inconsistency\non my part to believe that blamable in myself which I approve in them,\nyou will not be surprised that I follow them on the ground which they\nhave chosen, persuaded that Science, the chaste daughter of Thought, can\nno more lose her chastity under the pen of a pure woman than under that\nof a pure man.\n\nReaders, male and female, I have but one request to make; namely, that\nyou will pardon my simplicity of style. It would have cost me too much\npains to write in the approved fashion; it is probable, besides, that I\nshould not have succeeded. My work is one of conscience. If I enlighten\nsome, if I make others reflect; if I awaken in the heart of men the\nsentiment of justice, in that of women the sentiment of their dignity; if\nI am clear to all, fully comprehended by all, useful to all, even to my\nadversaries, it will satisfy me and will console me for displeasing those\nwho love ideas only as they love women: in full dress.\n\n\nTO MY ADVERSARIES.\n\nMany among you, gentlemen, adversaries of the great and holy cause which\nI defend, have cited me, evidently without having read me, without even\nknowing how to write my name. To such as these I have nothing to say,\nunless that their opinion matters little to me. Others, who have taken\nthe trouble to read my preceding works in the _Revue Philosophique_ and\nthe _Ragione_, accuse me of _not writing like a woman_, of being harsh,\nunsparing to my adversaries, nothing but a _reasoning machine, lacking\nheart_.\n\nGentlemen, I cannot write otherwise than as a woman, since I have the\nhonor to be a woman.\n\nIf am I harsh and unsparing to my adversaries, it is because they appear\nto me to be those of reason and of justice; it is because they, the\nstrong and well armed, attack harshly and unsparingly a sex which they\nhave taken care to render timid and to disarm; it is, in short, because I\nbelieve it perfectly lawful to defend weakness against tyranny which has\nthe audacity and insolence to erect itself into right.\n\nIf I appear to you in the unattractive aspect of a _reasoning_\n_machine_, is, in the first place, because Nature has made me so, and I\nsee no good reason for modifying her work; secondly, because it is not\namiss for a woman that has attained majority to prove to you that her\nsex, when not fearing your judgment, reasons as well, and, often, better\nthan you.\n\nI have no heart, you say. I am lacking in it, perhaps, towards tyrants,\nbut the conflict that I undertake proves that I am not lacking in it\ntowards their victims; I have therefore a sufficient quantity of it, the\nmore, inasmuch as I neither desire to please you, nor care to be loved by\nany among you.\n\nBe advised by me, gentlemen; break yourselves of the habit of confounding\nheart with nerves; cease to create an imaginary type of woman to make it\nthe standard of your judgment of real women; it is thus that you pervert\nyour reason and become, without wishing it, the thing of all others the\nmost hateful and least estimable--tyrants.\n\n\nTO MY FRIENDS.\n\nNow to you, my friends, known and unknown, a few lines of thanks.\n\nYou all comprehend that woman, as a human being, has the right to develop\nherself, and to manifest, like man, her spontaneity;\n\nThat she has the right, like man, to employ her activity; that she has\nthe right, like man, to be respected in her dignity and in the use which\nshe sees fit to make of her free will.\n\nThat as half in the social order, a producer, a tax-payer, amenable to\nthe laws, she has the right to count as half in society.\n\nYou all comprehend that it is in the enjoyment of these various rights\nthat her emancipation consists; not in the faculty of making use of love\noutside a moral law based on justice and self respect.\n\nThanks first to you, Ausonio Franchi, the representative of Critical\nPhilosophy in Italy, a man as eminent for the profundity of your ideas as\nfor the impartiality and elevation of your character; and who so\ngenerously and so long lent the columns of your _Ragione_ to my first\nlabors.\n\nThanks to you, my beloved co-laborers of the _Revue Philosophique_ of\nParis, Charles Lemonnier, Massol, Guepin, Brothier, etc., who have not\nhesitated to bring to light the question of the emancipation of my sex;\nwho have welcomed the works of a woman to your columns with so much\nimpartiality, and have on all occasions expressed for me interest and\nsympathy.\n\nThanks to you, in particular, my oldest friend, Charles Fauvety, the\nindefatigable searcher after truth, whose elegant, refined and limpid\nstyle is solely and constantly at the service of progressive ideas and\ngenerous aspirations, as your rich library and your counsels are at the\nservice of those who are seeking to enlighten humanity. Why, alas! do you\njoin to so many talents and noble qualities the fault of always remaining\nin the background to give place to others!\n\nThanks to you, Charles Renouvier, the most learned representative of\nCritical Philosophy in France, who join to such profound doctrine, such\nacute perception and such sureness of judgment; I would add, such modesty\nand unpretending virtue, did I not know that it displeases you to bring\nyou before the public.\n\nIt is from your encouragement and approbation, my friends and former\nco-laborers, that I have drawn the strength necessary to the work I am\nundertaking; it is just, therefore, that I should thank you in the\npresence of all.\n\nIt is equally just that I should publicly express my gratitude to the\nItalian, English, Dutch, American and German journals that have\ntranslated many of my articles; and to the men and women of these\ndifferent countries as well as of France, who have kindly expressed\nsympathy for me, and encouraged me in the struggle which I have\nundertaken against the adversaries of the rights of my sex.\n\nTo you all, my friends, both Frenchmen and foreigners, I dedicate this\nwork. May it be useful _everywhere_ in the triumph of the liberty of\nwoman, and of the equality of all before the law; this is the sole wish\nthat a Frenchwoman can make who believes in the unity of the human\nfamily, as well as in the legitimacy of national autonomies, and who\nloves all nations, since all are the organs of a single great\nbody,--Humanity.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nMICHELET.\n\n\nSeveral women have sharply criticised Michelet's \"Love.\"\n\nWhy are intelligent women thus dissatisfied with so upright a man as\nMichelet?\n\nBecause to him woman is a perpetual invalid, who should be shut up in a\ngyn\u00e6ceum in company with a dairy maid, as fit company only for chickens\nand turkeys.\n\nNow we, women of the west, have the audacity to contend that we are not\ninvalids, and that we have a holy horror of the harem and the gyn\u00e6ceum.\n\nWoman, _according to Michelet_, is a being of a nature opposite to that\nof man; a creature weak, _always wounded, exceedingly barometrical_, and,\nconsequently, unfit for labor.\n\nShe is incapable of abstracting, of generalizing, of comprehending\nconscientious labors. She does not like to occupy herself with business,\nand she is destitute, in part, of judicial sense. But, in return, she is\nrevealed all gentleness, all love, all grace, all devotion.\n\n_Created for man_, she is the altar of his heart, his refreshment, his\nconsolation. In her presence he gains new vigor, becomes inspirited,\ndraws the strength necessary to the accomplishment of his high mission\nas worker, creator, organizer.\n\nHe should love her, watch over her, maintain her; be at once her father,\nher lover, her instructor, her priest, her physician, her nurse, and her\nwaiting-maid.\n\nWhen, at eighteen, a virgin in reason, heart and body, she is given to\nthis husband, who should be twenty-eight, neither more nor less, he\nconfines her in the country in a charming cottage, at a distance from her\nparents and friends, with the rustic maid that we just mentioned.\n\nWhy this sequestration in the midst of the nineteenth century, do you\nask?\n\nBecause the husband can have no power over his wife in society, and can\nhave full power over her in solitude. Now, it is necessary that he should\nhave this full power over her, since it belongs to him to form her heart,\nto give her ideas, to sketch within her the incarnation of himself. For\nknow, readers, that woman is destined to reflect her husband, more and\nmore, until the last shade of difference, namely, that which is\nmaintained by the separation of the sexes, shall be at last effaced by\ndeath, and unity in love be thus effected.\n\nAt the end of half a score years of housekeeping, the wife is permitted\nto cross the threshold of the gyn\u00e6ceum, and to enter the world, or _the\ngreat Battle of Life_. Here she will meet more than one danger; but she\nwill escape them all if she keeps the oath she has taken _to make her\nhusband her confessor_.... It is evident that Michelet respects the\nrights of the soul. The husband, who at this epoch has become absorbed in\nhis profession, has necessarily degenerated, hence there is danger that\nthe wife may love another; may become enamored, for instance, of her\nyoung nephew. In the book, she does not succumb, because she confesses\neverything to her husband; still it may happen that she succumbs, then\nrepents, and solicits correction from her lord and master. The latter\nshould at first refuse, but, if she insists, rather than drive her to\ndespair, Michelet--who would on no account drive a woman to\ndespair--counsels the husband to administer to his wife _the chastisement\nthat mothers infliction inflict on their darlings_.\n\nThere must be no separation between the husband and wife; when the latter\nhas given herself away, she is no longer her own property. She becomes\nmore and more the incarnation of the man who has espoused her;\nfecundation transforms her into him, so that the children of the lover or\nof the second husband resemble the first impregnator. The husband, being\nten years older than the wife, dies first; the woman must preserve her\nwidowhood; her r\u00f4le henceforth until death is to fructify within her and\nabout her the ideas which her husband has bequeathed, to remain the\ncenter of his friendships, to raise up to him posthumous disciples, and\nthus remain his property until she rejoins him in death.\n\nIn case the husband survives, which may happen, the author does not tell\nus whether he should re-marry. Probably not, since love exists only\nbetween two; unless Michelet, who reproves polygamy in this world, admits\nit as morality in the life to come.\n\nYou see, my readers, that in Michelet's book, woman is created for man;\nwithout him she would be nothing; he it is who pronounces the _fiat lux_\nin her intellect; he it is who makes her in his image, as God made man in\nhis own.\n\nAccepting the Biblical Genesis, we women can appeal from Adam to God; for\nit was not Adam, but God, who created Eve. Admitting the Genesis of\nMichelet, there is no pretext, no excuse for disobedience; woman must be\nsubordinate to man and must yield to him, for she belongs to him as the\nwork to the workman, as the vessel to the potter.\n\nThe book of Michelet and the two studies of Proudhon on woman, are but\ntwo forms of the same thought. The sole difference that exists between\nthese gentlemen is, that the first is as sweet as honey, and the second\nas bitter as wormwood.\n\nNevertheless, I prefer the rude assailant to the poet; for insults and\nblows rouse us to rebel and to clamor for liberty, while compliments lull\nus to sleep and make us weakly endure our chains.\n\nIt would be somewhat cruel to be harsh to Michelet, who piques himself on\nlove and poetry, and, consequently, is thin skinned; we will therefore\ncastigate him only over the shoulders of M. Proudhon, who may be\ncannonaded with red-hot shot; and we will content ourselves with\ncriticising in his book what is not found in that of Proudhon.\n\nThe two chief pillars of the book on Love are,\n\nFirst, that woman is a wounded, weak, barometrical, constantly diseased\nbeing;\n\nSecond, that the woman belongs to the man who has fructified and\nincarnated himself in her; a proposition proved by the resemblance of the\nchildren of the wife to the husband, whoever may be the father.\n\nMichelet and his admirers and disciples do not dispute that the only good\nmethod of proving the truth of a principle, or the legitimateness of a\ngeneralization, is _verification by facts_; neither do they dispute that\nto make general rules of exceptions, to create imaginary laws, and to\ntake these pretended laws for the basis of argument, belongs only to the\naberrations of the Middle Age, profoundly disdained by men of earnest\nthought and severe reason. Let us apply these data unsparingly to the two\nprincipal affirmations of M. Michelet.\n\nIt is a principle in biology that _no physiological condition is a morbid\ncondition_; consequently, the monthly crisis peculiar to woman is not a\ndisease, but a normal phenomenon, the derangement of which causes\ndisturbance in the general health. Woman, therefore, is not an invalid\nbecause her sex is subject to a peculiar law. Can it be said that woman\nis wounded because she is subjected to a periodical fracture, the\ncicatrice of which is almost imperceptible? By no means. It would be\nabsurd to call a man perpetually wounded who should take a fancy to\nscratch the end of his finger every month.\n\nMichelet is too well informed to render it necessary for me to tell him\nthat the normal hemorrhage does not proceed from this wound of the ovary,\nabout which he makes so much ado, but from a congestion of the gestative\norgan.\n\nAre women ill on the recurrence of the law peculiar to their sex?\n\n_Very exceptionally, yes_; but in the indolent classes, in which\ntransgressions in diet, the lack of an intelligent physical education,\nand a thousand causes which I need not point out here, render women\nvaletudinarians.\n\n_Generally, no._ All our vigorous peasant women, our robust laundresses,\nwho stand the whole time with their feet in water, our workwomen, our\ntradeswomen, our teachers, our servant-maids, who attend with alacrity to\ntheir business and pleasures, experience no uncomfortableness, or at\nmost, very little.\n\nMichelet, therefore, has not only erred in erecting a physiological law\ninto a morbid condition, but he has also sinned against rational method\nby making general rules of a few exceptions, and by proceeding from this\ngeneralization, contradicted by the great majority of facts, to construct\na system of subjection.\n\nIf it is of the faculty of abstracting and generalizing that Michelet, as\nhe employs it, robs woman, we can only congratulate her on the\ndeprivation.\n\nNot only is woman diseased, says Michelet, in consequence of a biological\nlaw, but she is always diseased; she has uterine affections, hereditary\ntendencies, which may assume a terrible form in her sex, etc.\n\nWe would ask Michelet whether he considers his own sex as always diseased\nbecause it is corroded by cancer, disfigured by eruptions, tortured as\nmuch as ours by hereditary tendencies; for hereditary tendencies torture\nit as much as ours, and it is decimated and enfeebled far more fearfully\nby shameful diseases, the fruits of its excesses.\n\nOf what, then, is Michelet thinking, in laying such stress on the\ndiseases of women in the face of the quite as numerous diseases of men?\n\nThe wife should never be divorced or re-marry, because she has become the\nproperty of the husband. This is proved by the fact that the children of\nthe lover or of the second husband resemble the first husband.\n\nIf this is true, there are no children that resemble their mother.\n\nThere are no children that resemble the progenitors or collateral\nrelatives of their parents.\n\n_Every child_ resembles the first that knew his mother.\n\nCan you explain, then, why it is that so often he does _not_ resemble\nhim?\n\nWhy he resembles a grandfather, an uncle, an aunt, a brother, a sister of\none of the parents?\n\nWhy, in certain cities in the south of France, the inhabitants have\npreserved the Greek type, ascribed to the women, instead of that of their\nbarbaric fathers?\n\nWhy negresses who conceive from a white, bring into the world a mulatto,\noftenest with thick lips, a flat nose, and woolly hair?\n\nWhy many children resemble portraits which had attracted the attention of\nthe mother?\n\nWhy, in fine, physiologists, impressed by numerous facts, have thought\nthemselves justified in declaring woman _the preserver of the type_?\n\nIn the face of these undeniable facts, I ask you, yourself, what becomes\nof your theory?\n\nIt returns to the domain of chimeras.\n\nSome think that woman possesses a plastic force, which makes her mould\nher fruit after the model which love, hate, or fear has impressed within\nher brain; so that the child thus becomes merely a sort of photograph of\na cerebral image of the mother.\n\nBy the aid of this theory, we might explain the resemblance of the child\nto the father, to the first husband, to beloved relatives or to friends,\neither living or dead; but it would be impossible, thereby, to explain\nhow a woman can reproduce in her child the features of a progenitor of\nher husband or of herself, whose portrait, even, she has never seen; or\nhow, in spite of her wishes, the child resembles no one that she loves,\netc. Let us keep a discreet silence; the laws of generation and of\nresemblance are unknown. If we succeed in discovering them, it will be\nonly by long and patient observation, with the aid of judicious\ncriticism, and an honorable determination to be impartial. Laws are not\ncreated, but discovered; ignorance is more healthful for the mind than\nerror; to make general rules of _a few_ facts, without taking into\naccount facts more numerous by thousands which contradict them, is not to\nform a science, but a system of poetical metaphysics; and these\nmetaphysics, however gracefully draped they may be, are opposed to\nreason, to science, and to truth.\n\nMichelet will pardon me this short lesson in method. I should not presume\nto give it to him, were not men repeating, like well-trained parrots,\nafter him and Proudhon, that woman is destitute of high intellectual\nfaculties, that she is unsuited to science, that she has no comprehension\nof method, and other absurdities of like weight.\n\nAllegations such as these place women in a wholly exceptional position,\nwith respect to courtesy and reserve: they owe no consideration to those\nwho deny them these; their most important business at the present time is\nto prove to men that they deceive themselves, and that they are deceived;\nthat a woman is fully capable of teaching the chief among them how a law\nis discovered, how its reality is verified, how, and on what conditions\nwe have a right to believe, and to style ourselves, rational, and\nrationalists.\n\nBefore concluding, let us dwell on a few passages of the book on Love. I\nam curious to know what woman Michelet addresses when he says:\n\n\"Spare me your elaborate discussions on the equality of the sexes. Woman\nis not only our equal, but in many points our superior. Sooner or later\nshe will know everything. The question to decide here is, whether she\nshould know all in her first season of love.\n\nOh, how much she would lose by it! Youth, freshness, poetry--does she\nwish, at the first blow, to abandon all these? Is she in such haste to\ngrow old?\"\n\nPardon me, sir; you have already decreed that _there are no longer any\nold women_; nothing, therefore, can make woman grow old.\n\n\"There is knowledge of all kinds,\" you say; \"likewise, at all ages, the\nknowledge of woman should be different from that of man. It is less\nscience that she needs, than the essence of science, and its living\nelixir.\"\n\nWhat is this _essence_, and this _living elixir_ of science? Poetry\naside, can you, in exact and definite terms, explain to me what they\nmean?\n\nCan you prove to me, a woman, that I desire to possess knowledge\ndifferently from you?\n\nTake care! disciple of liberty, you have not the right to think and to\nwish in my place. I have, like you, an intellect and a free will, to\nwhich you are bound, by your principles, to pay sovereign respect. Now I\nforbid you to speak for any woman; I forbid you in the name of what you\ncall _the rights of the soul_.\n\n\"You by no means deny,\" you say, \"that, strictly speaking, a young woman\ncan read everything, and inform herself of everything; can pass through\nall the ordeals to which the mind of man is subjected, and still remain\npure. You only maintain,\" you add, \"that her soul, withered by reading,\npalled by novels, living habitually on the stimulus of play-houses, on\nthe aqua-fortis of criminal courts, will become, not corrupted, perhaps,\nbut vulgar, common, trivial, like the curb-stone in the street. This\ncurb-stone is a good stone; you have only to break it to see that it is\nwhite within. This does not hinder it from being sadly soiled outside, in\nevery respect as dirty as the street gutter from which it has been\nsplashed.\n\n\"Is this, madam, the ideal to which you lay claim for her who should\nremain the temple of man, the altar of his heart, whence he daily\nrekindles the flame of pure love?\"\n\nA truce to imagery and oratorical outbursts; none of us demand for woman\nany degradation whatever. There would be no need for us to demand what\nyou censure, since it is thoroughly authorized and practised. I by no\nmeans wish to accuse you of bad faith, of want of reflection, and of too\nmuch moral tolerance; yet let us strip off your poetic mantle, and\ntranslate your thought into prose; the drapery will no longer make us\nforget the idea.\n\nWhen instruction has been demanded for the people, has any one ever taken\nit into his head to fancy that the point in question was to make them\nread novels, to swell the attendance on criminal courts, and to multiply\ntheatres?\n\nNo, you will say.\n\nWhat authorizes you, then, to believe that those who demand a solid\neducation for woman, are seeking that of of which you, on your part, do\nnot dream for the people?\n\nOn the other hand, do you cultivate the intellect of man by novels,\ntheatres, and spectacles of criminal courts? Is it in these things that\nhis knowledge consists? No, you will say. What is there, then, in common\nbetween that which you censure, and the knowledge that we desire for\nwoman; and why attribute to us absurd ideas, that you may have the\npleasure of wrangling with phantoms?\n\nAll your fine ladies are nurtured on novels, plays, and judicial\nexcitements; yet they are neither vulgar, nor trivial, nor comparable to\ncurb-stones sullied by the mud of the streets; what you tell them,\ntherefore, is no more true than kind.\n\nBut if you pay them doubtful compliments, which they do not deserve, you\nabsolve them too easily, in turn. Listen to our principles, that you may\nnot run the risk of appearing unjust with respect to us.\n\nCorruption in our eyes, is not merely the want of chastity, or the\nshameful suit of gallantry, but all habitual improper sentiment, all\nweakening of the moral sense, and we absolutely condemn everything which\nhas power to lessen the sensibility of the soul, and to turn it aside\nfrom the practice of justice, of virtue, and of self-respect.\n\nIn consequence, we profess that the spectacles of criminal courts\nhabituate the heart to insensibility, and should be avoided as much as\nexecutions.\n\nWe profess that the modern drama is generally evil, because it excites\ninterest for adulterers, robbers, seducers and prostitutes; that the\nintellect is subjected in theatres to an unhealthy and enervating\natmosphere.\n\nWe profess, lastly, that novels should be read with great moderation,\nbecause, in general, when they do not corrupt the morals, they pervert\nthe judgment and waste precious time.\n\nThough we love and esteem Art, we are indignant at the bad use which is\nmade of it, and we have little esteem for those who avail themselves of\nit to lead the heart astray, and to pervert the moral sense.\n\nWe say to woman: Educate yourselves, be worthy and chaste; life is\nearnest, employ it earnestly.\n\nYou see that _woman in the image of the stained curb-stone_, is by no\nmeans the ideal of which we dream.\n\nCan you, a man of heart, can you treat women as wretched and corrupt\nbecause they are willing no longer to be slaves?\n\nAnd besides, do you think that liberty, which in man engenders\nindividuality and virtue, would produce in woman moral degradation?\n\nAh! leave these calumnies to those who have no heart; they ill befit you,\nwho may deceive yourself through the lofty poetry of your soul, but who\ncan wish for evil only because you believe it to be good.\n\nThe women who ask to be free, great, mistaken poet, are those who are\nconscious of their dignity, of the true r\u00f4le of their sex in humanity;\nthose who desire that the women who follow them in the career of labor\nshould no longer be obliged _to live by man_, because to live by him is\nat least to prostitute their dignity, and almost always, their whole\nperson. They wish that woman should be the equal of man, in order to love\nhim holily, to devote herself without calculation, to cease to deceive\nhim or to rule him by artifice, and to become to him a useful auxiliary,\ninstead of a servant or a toy. They know our influence over you; slaves,\nwe can only debase you; at present, we render you cowardly, selfish, and\ndishonest; we send you out every morning, like vultures, upon society, to\nprovide for our foolish expenses or to endow our children; we, women of\nemancipation, are unwilling that our sex should longer play this odious\nr\u00f4le, and be, through its slavery, an instrument of demoralization and of\nsocial degradation,--and this you impute to us as a crime!\n\nAh! I do not believe it; you yourself will say that I ought not to\nbelieve it.\n\nLooking from a deplorably narrow stand point, you fancied that you saw\nall woman-kind in a few valetudinarians, your kind heart was moved for\nthem, and you sought to protect them. Had you looked far and high, you\nwould have seen the workers of thought and muscle; you would have\ncomprehended that inequality is to them a source of corruption and\nsuffering.\n\nThen, in your lofty and glowing style, you would have written, not this\nbook of Love which repels all intelligent and reflective women, but a\ngreat and beautiful work to demand the right of half the human race.\n\nThe misfortune, the irreparable misfortune, is that instead of climbing\nto the mountain top to look at every moving thing under the vast horizon,\nyou have shut yourself up in a narrow valley, where, seeing nothing but\npale violets, you have concluded that every flower must be also a pale\nviolet; whilst Nature has created a thousand other species, on the\ncontrary, strong and vigorous, with a right, like you, to earth, air,\nwater and sunshine.\n\nWhatever may be your love, your kindness and your good intentions towards\nwoman, your book would be immensely dangerous to the cause of her\nliberty, if men were in a mood to relish your ethics: but they will\nremain as they are; and the dignity of woman, kept waking by their\nbrutality, their despotism, their desertion, their foul morals, will not\nbe lulled to sleep under the fresh, verdant, alluring and treacherously\nperfumed foliage of this manchineel tree, called the book of _Love_.\n\nIn Michelet's later work, \"Woman,\" by the side of many beautiful pages\nfull of heart and poetry are found things that we regret to point out,\nfor the sake of the author.\n\nM. Michelet has evidently amended, as we shall press on him; but as a\nspice of vengeance, he pretends that their language has been dictated by\ndirectors, _philosophers and others_. We know some of these ladies\npersonally, and can assure him that they have had no director of any\nkind--quite the contrary.\n\nIs it also in consequence of rancor that the author pretends that woman\nloves man, not for his real worth, but because he pleases her, and that\nshe makes God in her own image, \"a God of partiality and caprice, who\nsaves those who please him?\" \"In feminine theology,\" adds Michelet, \"God\nwould say: I love thee because thou art a sinner, because thou hast no\nmerit; I have no reason to love thee, but it is sweet to me to forgive.\"\n\nVery well, your sex loves woman _for her real worth_; we never hear a\nman, enamored of some unworthy creature, say: \"What matters it, I love\nher!\" Your love is always wise, and given reasonably; none but deserving\nwomen can please you. I ask why so many honest women are abandoned and\nunhappy, while so many that are impure and vicious, yet sought and\nadored, are in possession of the art of charming, of ruining and of\nperverting men?\n\nMichelet deplores the state of divorce which is established between the\nsexes; we deplore it likewise; but our complaints do not remedy it. Men\nshun marriage from motives that do them no credit: they have at their\npleasure the poor girls whom want places at their mercy; they shun\nmarriage because they do not wish a real, that is, an autonomous wife at\ntheir side; for themselves, they wish liberty, for their wife, slavery.\n\nOn their side, women tend to enfranchisement, which is well for them as\nit is for men: they should not suffer themselves to be turned aside from\ntheir pursuit; on the other hand, as men are attracted by a costly\ntoilette, and neglect plainly dressed women, if the latter, in the wish\nto please and retain them, imitate public women, whose is the fault? Is\nit ours, who desire to please you and to be loved by you, or yours, who\ncan only be attracted by dress? If you loved us _for our real worth_, and\nnot because our dresses and jewels please your eye, we would not ruin\nyou.\n\nLet us point out in a few lines the contradictions and differences that\nare found between Michelet's first and second works.\n\nIn both, woman is the flame of love and of the fireside religion,\nharmony, poetry, the guardian of the domestic hearth, a housewife whose\ncares are ennobled by love: civilization is due to her grace, she should\nbe the representative of grace if not of beauty.\n\nIn both books, the household must be isolated; the wife must have no\nintimate friendship; mother, brothers and sisters prevent her from\nbecoming absorbed as she ought to be in her husband. What we think of\nthis absorption is already known; we will only say here that if the\nfriends and relatives of the wife should be expelled, those of the\nhusband should be none the less so; the mother and friends of the husband\nhave more power to injure the wife than those of the wife to injure the\nhusband; numerous sad facts prove this.\n\nIn \"Love,\" woman is a receptive power, incapable of comprehending\nconscientious works; she must receive everything from her husband in the\nintellectual and moral point of view.\n\nIn \"Woman,\" she is half of the couple, in the same ratio as man is\ncapable of the most lofty speculations, and thoroughly understands\nadministration. She gives the child the education that before all else\nwill influence the rest of his life. \"So long as woman is not the partner\nof labor and of _action_,\" says the author, \"we are serfs, we can do\nnothing--she may even be the equal of man in medical science; she is a\nschool, she is sole educatress, etc.\"\n\nVery well, thus far; and doubtless Michelet would have been consistent,\nhad he not got into his head a masculine and a feminine ideal which\nspoils everything; he reasoned to himself: \"Man is a creator, woman a\nharmony whose end and destination is love;\" and, consequently, he marks\nout for the latter a plan of education different from that by which man\nshould be developed; the natural sciences are suited to woman, history\nshould only be taught her to form in her a firm moral and religious\nfaith. As love is her vocation, to each season of the life of woman\nshould correspond an object of love; flowers, the doll, poor children,\nnext the lover, then the husband and children, then the care of young\norphans, prisoners, etc.\n\nIn \"Love,\" the wife alone seems bound to confess to the husband. In\n\"Woman,\" the obligation is mutual.\n\nThe widow, in \"Love,\" should not marry again, in \"Woman,\" she may espouse\na friend of the husband, or still better, the one whom he may choose on\nhis deathbed; if she is too old, she may watch over a young man; but she\nwill do better to protect young girls, to make peace in families, to\nfacilitate marriages, to superintend prisons, etc.\n\nWe will carry the analysis no further; our objections to the author's\ndoctrine will be found in the article on Proudhon, and in the sequel of\nthe work.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nPROUDHON.\n\n\nThe tenth and eleventh studies of the last work of M. Proudhon, \"Justice\nin the Revolution and in the Church,\" comprise the author's whole\ndoctrine concerning Woman, Love, and Marriage.\n\nBefore analyzing it and criticising its chief points, I must acquaint my\nreaders with the polemical commencement which _appears_ to have given\nrise to the publication of the strange doctrines of our great critic. In\nthe _Revue Philosophique_ of December, 1856, the following article by me\nwas published under the title, _Proudhon and the Woman Question_:--\n\n\"Women have a weakness for soldiers, it is said. It is true, but they\nshould not be reproached for it; they love even the show of courage,\nwhich is a glorious and holy thing. I am a woman, Proudhon is a great\nsoldier of thought. I cannot therefore prevent myself from regarding him\nwith esteem and sympathy; sentiments to which he will owe the moderation\nof my attack on his opinions concerning the r\u00f4le of woman in humanity. In\nhis first \"Memoir on Property,\" note on page 265, edition of 1841, we\nread the following paradox in the style of the Koran:\n\n\"Between man and woman may exist love, passion, the bond of habit,\nwhatever you like; there is not _true society_. _Man and woman are not\ncompanions._ The difference of sex gives rise between them to a\nseparation _of the same nature as that which the difference of races\nplaces between animals_. Thus, far from applauding what is now called the\nemancipation of woman, I should be much more inclined, were it necessary\nto go to this extremity, _to put woman in seclusion_.\"\n\nIn the third \"Memoir on Property,\" we read:\n\n\"This signifies that woman, _by nature and by destination_, is neither\n_associate, nor citizen, nor public functionary_.\"\n\nI open the \"Creation of Order in Humanity,\" and read there:\n\n\"It is in treating of education that we must determine the part of woman\nin society. Woman, until she becomes a wife, is _apprentice_, at most\n_under-superintendent_, in the work-shop, as in the family, she _remains\na minor, and does not form a part of the commonwealth_. Woman is not, as\nis commonly affirmed, _the half nor the equal of man_, but the living and\nsympathetic _complement_ that is lacking to make him an individual.\"\n\nIn the \"Economical Contradictions,\" we read:\n\n\"For my part, the more I reflect on the destiny of woman outside of the\nfamily and the household, the less I can account for it: _courtesan or\nhousewife_, (housewife, I say, not servant,) I see no medium.\"\n\nI had always laughed at these paradoxes; they had no more doctrinal value\nin my eyes than the thousand other freaks so common to this celebrated\ncritic. A short time since, an obscure journal pretended that Proudhon,\nin private conversations, had drawn up a formula of an entire system\nbased on masculine omnipotence, and published this system in its columns.\nOne of two things is certain, said I to myself; either the journalist\nspeaks falsely, or he tells the truth; if he speaks falsely, his evident\naim is to destroy Proudhon in the confidence of the friends of progress,\nand to make him lose his lawful share of influence, in which case, he\nmust be warned of it; if he tells the truth, Proudhon must still be\nwarned of the fact, since it is impossible that, being the father of\n_several daughters_, paternal feeling should not have set him on the road\nto reason. At all events, I must know about it. I wrote to Proudhon, who,\nthe next day, returned me an answer which I transcribe _verbatim_:\n\n   \"MADAM:\n\n   \"I know nothing of the article published by M. Charles Robin in\n   the _Telegraphe_ of yesterday. In order to inform myself with\n   regard to this paraphrase, as you entitle the article of M.\n   Robin, I examined my first \"Memoir on Property,\" page 265,\n   Garnier edition, (I have no other,) and found no note there. I\n   examined the same page in my other pamphlet, and discovered no\n   note anywhere. It is therefore impossible for me to reply to your\n   first question.\n\n   \"I do not exactly know what you call _my opinions_ on woman,\n   marriage and the family; for I believe I have given no one a\n   right to speak of my opinions on these subjects, any more than on\n   that of property.\n\n   \"I have written economical and social criticisms; in making these\n   criticisms (I take the word in its highest signification), I may\n   have indeed expressed judgments to a greater or less degree\n   relative, concerning a truth. I have no where that I know of,\n   framed a dogma, a theory, a collection of principles; in a word,\n   a system. All that I can tell you is, in the first place, as far\n   as concerns myself, that my opinions have been formed\n   progressively and in an unvarying direction; that, at the time at\n   which I write, I have not deviated from this direction; and that,\n   with this reserve, my existing opinions accord perfectly with\n   what they were seventeen years ago when I published my first\n   memoirs.\n\n   \"In the second place, with regard to you, Madam, who, in\n   interrogating me do not leave me in ignorance of your sentiments,\n   I will tell you with all the frankness which your letter exacts,\n   and which you expect from a compatriot, that I do not regard the\n   question of marriage, of woman, and of the family in the same\n   light as yourself, or any of the innovating authors whose ideas\n   have come to my knowledge; that I do not admit, for instance,\n   that woman has the right at the present time to separate her\n   cause from that of man, and to demand for herself special\n   legislation, as though her chief tyrant and enemy were man; that\n   further, I do not admit that, whatever reparation may be due to\n   woman, of joint thirds with her husband (or father) and her\n   children, the most rigorous justice can ever make her the EQUAL\n   of man; that neither do I admit that this inferiority of the\n   female sex constitutes for it either servitude, or humiliation,\n   or a diminution of dignity, liberty, or happiness. I maintain\n   that the contrary is true.\n\n   \"I consider, therefore, the sort of crusade that is being carried\n   on at this time by a few estimable ladies in both hemispheres in\n   behalf of the prerogatives of their sex, as a symptom of the\n   general renovation that is being wrought; but nevertheless, as\n   an exaggerated symptom, _an infatuation that proceeds precisely\n   from the infirmity of the sex and its incapacity to understand\n   and to govern itself_.\n\n   \"I have read, Madam, a few of your articles. I find that your\n   wit, capacity and knowledge place you certainly above an infinity\n   of males who have nothing of their sex but the proletary faculty.\n   In this respect, were it necessary to decide on your thesis by\n   comparisons of this kind, you would doubtless gain the cause.\n\n   \"But you have too much good sense not to comprehend that the\n   question here is by no means to compare individual with\n   individual, but the whole feminine sex in its aggregate with the\n   whole masculine sex, in order to know whether these two halves,\n   the complements of each other, are or are not equals in the human\n   androgynus.\n\n   \"In accordance with this principle, I do not believe that your\n   system, which is, I think, that of equality or equivalence, can\n   be sustained, and I regard it as a weakness of our epoch.\n\n   \"You have interrogated me, Madam, with Franche-Comtois\n   abruptness. I wish you to take my words in good part, and, since\n   I doubtless do not agree at all with you, not to see in me an\n   enemy of woman, a detractor of your sex, worthy of the\n   animadversions of maidens, wives and mothers. The rules of fair\n   discussion oblige you to admit at least that you may be deceived,\n   that I may be right, that in such case it is I who am truly the\n   defender and friend of woman; I ask nothing more.\n\n   \"You and your companions have raised a very great question, which\n   I think that you have hitherto treated quite superficially. But\n   the indifferent manner in which this subject has been treated\n   should not be considered as conclusive reason for not receiving\n   it; on the contrary, I regard it as another reason for the\n   advocates of the equality of the two sexes to make greater\n   efforts. In this respect, Madam, I doubt not that you will\n   signalize yourself anew, and await with impatience the volume\n   that you announce, which I promise to read with all the attention\n   of which I am capable.\"\n\n\nOn reading this letter, I transcribed the note which M. Proudhon had not\nsucceeded in finding, and sent it to him, with the article of M. Charles\nRobin. As he did not reply, his silence authorizes me to believe the\njournalist.\n\nAh! you persist in maintaining that woman is inferior, minor! you believe\nthat women will bow devoutly before the high decree of your autocracy!\nNo, no; it will not, it cannot be so. To battle, M. Proudhon! But let us\nfirst dispose of the question of my personality.\n\nYou consider me as an exception, by telling me that, if it were necessary\nto decide on my thesis by comparison between a host of men and myself,\nthe decision would be, doubtless, in favor of my opinions. Mark my reply:\n\n\"_Every true law is absolute._ The ignorance or folly of grammarians,\nmoralists, jurisconsults, and other philosophers, alone invented the\nproverb: There is no rule without an exception. _The mania of imposing\nlaws on Nature, instead of studying Nature's own laws, afterwards\nconfirmed this aphorism of ignorance._\" Who said this? You, in the\n\"Creation of Order in Humanity.\" Why is your letter in contradiction with\nthis doctrine?\n\nHave you changed your opinion? Then I entreat you to tell me whether men\nof worth are not quite as exceptional in their sex, as women of merit in\ntheirs. You have said: \"Whatever may be the differences existing between\nmen, they are equal, because they are human beings.\" Under penalty of\ninconsistency, you must add: Whatever may be the differences existing\nbetween the sexes, they are equal, because they form a part of the human\nspecies--unless you prove that women are not a part of humanity.\nIndividual worth, not being the basis of right between men, cannot become\nso between the sexes. Your compliment is, therefore, a contradiction.\n\nI add, lastly, that I feel myself linked with my sex by too close a\nsolidarity ever to be content to see myself abstracted from it by an\nillogical process. I am a woman--I glory in it; I rejoice if any value is\nset upon me, not for myself, indeed, but because this contributes to\nmodify the opinion of men with respect to my sex. A woman who is happy in\nhearing it said: \"_You are a man_,\" is, in my eyes, a simpleton, an\nunworthy creature, avowing the superiority of the masculine sex; and the\nmen who think that they compliment her in this manner, are vainglorious\nand impertinent boasters. If I acquire any desert, I thus pay honor to\nwomen, I reveal their aptitudes, I do not pass into the other sex any\nmore than Proudhon abandons his own, because he is elevated by his\nintellect above the level of foolish and ignorant men; and if the\nignorance of the mass of men prejudges nothing against their right, no\nmore does the ignorance of the mass of women prejudge anything against\ntheirs.\n\nYou affirm that man and woman do not form _true society_.\n\nTell us, then, what is marriage, what is society.\n\nYou affirm that the difference of sex places between man and woman a\nseparation of the same nature _as that which the difference of races\nplaces between animals_. Then prove:\n\nThat the race is not essentially formed of two sexes;\n\nThat man and woman can be reproduced separately;\n\nThat their common product is a mixed breed, or a mule;\n\nThat their characteristics are dissimilar, apart from sexuality.\n\nAnd if you come off with honor from this great feat of strength, you will\nstill have to prove:\n\nThat to difference of race corresponds difference _of right_;\n\nThat the black, the yellow, the copper-colored persons belonging to races\ninferior to the Caucasian cannot truly associate with the latter; that\nthey are minors.\n\nCome, sir, study anthropology, physiology, and phrenology, and employ\nyour serial dialectics to prove all this to us.\n\nYou are inclined to seclude woman, instead of emancipating her?\n\nProve to men that they have the right to do so; to women, that it is\ntheir duty to suffer themselves to be placed under lock and key. I\ndeclare, for my part, that I would not submit to it. Does Proudhon\nremember how he threatens the priest who shall lay his hand on his\nchildren? Well, the majority of women would not confine themselves to\nthreats against those who might have the Mussulmanic inclination of\nProudhon.\n\nYou affirm that by _nature_, and by _destination_, woman is neither\n_associate_, nor _citizen_, nor _functionary_. Tell us, in the first\nplace, _what nature_ it is necessary to have to be all these.\n\nReveal to us the _nature_ of woman, since you claim to know it better\nthan she does herself.\n\nReveal to us her _destination_, which apparently is not that which we\nsee, nor which she believes to be such.\n\nYou affirm that woman, until her marriage, is nothing more than\n_apprentice_, at most, under-superintendent in the social workshop; that\nshe is _minor_ in the family, and _does not form a part of the\ncommonwealth_.\n\nProve, then, that she does not execute in the social workshop and in the\nfamily works _equivalent_, or equal, to those of man.\n\nProve that she is less useful than man.\n\nProve that the qualities that give to man the right of citizenship, do\nnot exist in woman.\n\nI shall be severe with you on this head. To subordinate woman in a social\norder in which she must _work in order to live_ is to _desire\nprostitution_; for disdain of the producer extends to the value of the\nproduct; and when such a doctrine is contrary to science, good sense, and\nprogress, to sustain it is _cruelty_, is _moral monstrosity_. The woman\nwho cannot live by working, can only do so by prostituting herself; the\nequal of man or a courtesan, such is the alternative. He is blind who\ndoes not see it.\n\nYou see no other fate for woman than to be courtesan or housewife. Open\nyour eyes wider, and dream less, and tell me whether all those useful and\ncourageous women are only housewives or courtesans, who support\nthemselves honorably by arts, literature, instruction;\n\nWho found numerous and prosperous manufactures;\n\nWho superintend commercial establishments;\n\nWho are such good managers, that many among them conceal or repair the\nfaults resulting from the carelessness or dissipation of their husbands.\n\nProve to us, therefore, that all this is wrong;\n\nProve to us that it is not the result of human progress;\n\nProve to us that labor, the stamp of the human species--that labor, which\nyou consider as the great emancipator--that labor, which makes men equal\nand free, has not virtue to make women equal and free. If you prove this\nto us, we shall have to register one contradiction more.\n\nYou do not admit that woman should have the right of claiming for herself\nspecial legislation, as though man were her chief enemy and tyrant.\n\nYou, sir, are the one that legislates specially for woman; she herself\ndesires nothing but the common law.\n\nYes; until now, man, in subordinating woman, has been her tyrant and\nenemy. I am of your opinion when, in your first \"Memoir on Property,\" you\nsay that, so long as the strong and the weak are not _equals_, they are\n_strangers_, they cannot form an alliance, _they are enemies_. Yes,\nthrice yes, so long as man and woman are not equals, woman is in the\nright in considering man as her _tyrant_ and _enemy_.\n\n\"The most rigorous justice cannot make woman the EQUAL of man.\" And it is\nto a woman whom you set in your opinion above a host of men, that you\naffirm such a thing! What a contradiction!\n\n\"It is _an infatuation_ for women to demand their right!\" _An\ninfatuation_ like that of slaves, pretending that they were created\nfreemen; of the citizens of '89, proving that men are equal before the\nlaw. Do you know who were, who are the infatuated? The masters, the\nnobles, the whites, the men who have denied, who do deny, and who will\ndeny, that slaves, citizens, blacks, and women, are born for liberty and\nequality.\n\n\"The sex to which I belong is incapable of understanding and governing\nitself,\" say you!\n\nProve that it is destitute of intellect;\n\nProve that great empresses and great queens have not governed as well as\ngreat emperors and great kings;\n\nProve against all the facts patent that women are not in general good\nobservers and good managers;\n\nThen prove that all men understand themselves perfectly and govern\nthemselves admirably, and that progress moves as if on wheels.\n\n\"Woman is neither the _half_ nor the _equal_ of man; she is _the\ncomplement that finally makes him an individual_; the two sexes form _the\nhuman androgynus_.\" Come; seriously, what means this jingle of empty\nwords? They are metaphors, unworthy to figure in scientific language,\nwhen our own and the other higher zo\u00f6logical species are in question. The\nlioness, the she-wolf and the tigress are no more the halves or the\ncomplement of their species than woman is the complement of man. Or\nNature has established two _exteriorities_, two wills, she affirms two\nunities, two entireties not one, or _two halves_; the arithmetic of\nNature cannot be destroyed by the freaks of the imagination.\n\nIs equality before the law based upon _individual_ qualities? Proudhon\nreplies in the \"Creation of Order in Humanity\":\n\n\"Neither birth, nor figure, _nor faculties_, nor fortune, nor rank, nor\nprofession, nor talent, nor anything that distinguishes individuals\nestablishes between them a difference of species; all being men, and _the\nlaw regulating only human relations, it is the same for all_; so that to\nestablish exceptions, it would be necessary to prove that the individuals\nexcepted are _above_ or _beneath_ the human species.\"\n\nProve to us that women are _above_ or _beneath_ the human species, that\nthey do not form a part of it, or, _under penalty of contradiction_,\nsubmit to the consequences of your doctrine.\n\nYou say in the \"Social Revolution;\"\n\n\"Neither conscience, nor reason, nor liberty, nor labor, pure forces,\n_primary and creative faculties_, can be made mechanical without being\ndestroyed. Their reason of existence is in themselves; in their works\nthey should find their reason of action. In this consists the human\nperson, a sacred person, etc.\"\n\nProve that women have neither conscience, nor reason, nor moral liberty,\nand that they do not labor. If it is demonstrated that they possess the\n_primary and creative faculties_, respect their human person, for it is\nsacred.\n\nIn the \"Creation of Order in Humanity,\" you say:\n\n\"Specifically, labor satisfies the desire of our personality, which tends\ninvincibly to make a difference between itself and others, _to render\nitself independent_, _to conquer its liberty_ and its character.\"\n\nProve then that women have no special work, and, if facts contradict you,\nacknowledge that, it inevitably tends to _independence_, to _liberty_.\n\nDo you deny that they are your equals because they are less intelligent\nas a whole than men? In the first place, I contest it; but I need not do\nso, you yourself resolve this difficulty in the \"Creation of Order in\nHumanity:\"\n\n\"The inequality of capacities, when not caused by constitutional vices,\nmutilation or want, results from general ignorance, insufficient method,\nlack or falsity of education, and divergence of intuition through lack of\nsequence, whence arises dispersion and confusion of ideas. Now, all these\nfacts productive of inequality are essentially abnormal, therefore the\ninequality of capacities is abnormal.\"\n\nUnless you prove that women are mutilated by Nature, I do not exactly see\nhow you can escape the consequences of your syllogism: not only has\nfeminine inferiority the same sources as masculine ignorance, but public\neducation is refused to women, the great professional schools are closed\nto them, those who through their intellect equal the most intelligent\namong you have had twenty times as many difficulties and prejudices to\novercome.\n\nYou wish to subordinate women because in general they have less muscular\nforce than you; but at this rate the weak men ought not to be the equals\nof the strong, and you combat this consequence yourself in your first\n\"Memoir on Property,\" where you say:\n\n\"Social equilibrium is the equalization of the strong and the weak.\"\n\nIf I have treated you with consideration, it is because you are an\nintelligent and progressive man, and because it is impossible that you\nshould remain under the influence of the doctors of the Middle Age on one\nquestion, while you are in advance of the majority of your cotemporaries\non so many others. You will cease to sustain an illogical series that is\nwithout foundation, remembering, as you have said so well in the\n\"Creation of Order in Humanity:\"\n\n\"That the greater part of philosophical aberrations and chimeras have\narisen from attributing to logical series a reality that they do not\npossess, and endeavoring to explain the nature of man by abstractions.\"\n\nYou will acknowledge that all the higher animal species are composed of\ntwo sexes;\n\nThat in none is the female the inferior of the male, except sometimes\nthrough force, which cannot be the basis of human right;\n\nYou will renounce the androgynus, which is only a dream.\n\nWoman, a distinct individual, endowed with consciousness, intellect, will\nand activity like man, will be no longer separated from him before the\nlaws.\n\nYou will say of all, both men and women, as in your first \"Memoir on\nProperty:\"\n\n\"Liberty is an absolute right, because it is to man what impenetrability\nis to matter, a condition _sine qua non_ of existence. Equality is an\n_absolute right_, because without equality, there is no society.\"\n\nAnd you will thus show the second degree of sociability, which you\nyourself define, \"the recognition in another of a personality _equal_ to\nour own.\"\n\nI appeal therefore from Proudhon drunk with theology to Proudhon sobered\nby facts and science, moved by the sorrows and disorders resulting from\nhis own systems.\n\nI hope I shall not encounter his Herculean club raised against the holy\nbanner of truth and right; against woman,--that being physically so weak,\nmorally so strong, who, bleeding, and steeped in gall beneath her crown\nof roses, is just on the point of reaching the top of the rough mountain\nwhere progress will shortly give her her lawful place by the side of man.\nBut if my hopes are deceitful, mark me well, M. Proudhon, you will find\nme standing firmly in the breach, and, whatever may be your strength, I\nvow that you shall not overthrow me. I will courageously defend the right\nand dignity of your daughters against the despotism and logical error of\ntheir father, and the victory will remain mine, for, definitively, it\nalways belongs to truth.\"\n\nProudhon replied by the following letter in the _Revue Philosophique_:\n\n   \"TO MADAME d'H\u00c9RICOURT.\n\n    \"Well, Madam, what did I tell you in my last letter?\n\n   \"I consider the sort of crusade that is being carried on at this\n   time by some estimable ladies in both hemispheres in behalf of\n   their sex, as a symptom of the general revolution that is being\n   wrought; but nevertheless as an exaggerated symptom, an\n   infatuation that proceeds precisely from the inferiority of the\n   sex and its incapacity to understand and to govern itself.\n\n   \"I begin by withdrawing the word _infatuation_, which may have\n   wounded you, but which was not, as you know, intended for\n   publicity.\n\n   \"This point adjusted, I will tell you, Madam, with all the\n   respect that I owe you as a woman, that I did not expect to see\n   you confirm my judgment so speedily by your petulant appeal.\n\n   \"I was at first at a loss to know whence came the discontent that\n   impelled the bravest, the most distinguished among you, to an\n   assault on paternal and marital supremacy. I said to myself, not\n   without disquietude, What is the matter? What is it that troubles\n   them? With what do they reproach us? To which of our faculties,\n   our virtues, our prerogatives; or else of our failings, our\n   perfidies, our calamities, do they aspire? Is this the cry of\n   their outraged nature, or an aberration of their understanding?\n\n   \"Your attack, joined to the studies which I immediately commenced\n   on the subject, came at last to solve the question.\n\n   \"No, Madam, you know nothing of your sex; you do not know the\n   first word of the question that you and your honorable\n   confederates are agitating with so much noise and so little\n   success. And, if you do not comprehend this question; if, in your\n   eight pages of reply to my letter, there are forty paralogisms,\n   it results precisely, as I have told you, from your _sexual\n   infirmity_. I mean by this word, the exactness of which is not,\n   perhaps, irreproachable, the quality of your understanding, which\n   permits you to seize the relation of things only as far as we,\n   men, place your finger upon them. You have in the brain, as in\n   the body, a certain organ incapable by itself of overcoming its\n   native inertia, and which the masculine spirit alone is capable\n   of setting in motion; and even this does not always succeed.\n   Such, Madam, is the result of my direct and positive\n   observations; I make them over to your obstetrical sagacity, and\n   leave you to calculate therefrom the incalculable consequences to\n   your thesis.\n\n   \"I will willingly enter into an elaborate discussion with you,\n   Madam, on this obscure subject, in the _Revue Philosophique_.\n   But--as you will comprehend as well as I--the broader the\n   question, the more it affects our most sacred, social, and\n   domestic interests, the more important is it that we should\n   approach it with seriousness and prudence.\n\n   \"The following course, therefore, appears to me indispensable:\n   In the first place, you have promised us a book, and I await it.\n   I need this work to complete my documents and to finish my\n   demonstration. Since I had the honor of receiving and replying to\n   your letter, I have made earnest and interesting studies on\n   woman, which I ask only to rectify if they are erroneous; as I\n   also desire to set a seal on them if, as I have every reason to\n   presume, your publication brings me but one confirmation more.\n\n   \"I have verified by facts and documents the truth of all the\n   assertions which you call on me to retract, namely:\n\n   \"That the difference of sex raises up between man and woman a\n   separation ANALOGOUS--I did not say equal--to that which the\n   difference of races and species establishes between animals;\n\n   \"That by reason of this separation or difference, man and woman\n   are not _associates_; I did not say that they could not be\n   anything else;\n\n   \"That, consequently, woman can only be a _citizen_ in so far as\n   she is the wife of a citizen; as we say _Madame la Presidente_ to\n   the wife of a President: which does not imply that no other r\u00f4le\n   exists for her.\n\n   \"In two words, I am in a position to establish, by observation\n   and reasoning, the facts, that woman, being weaker than man with\n   respect to _muscular force_, as you yourself acknowledge, is not\n   less inferior to him with respect to INDUSTRIAL, ARTISTIC,\n   PHILOSOPHICAL and MORAL POWER; so that if the condition of woman\n   in society be regulated, as you demand for her, by the same\n   justice as the condition of man, it is all over with her, she is\n   a slave.\n\n   \"To which I add, immediately, that this system is precisely what\n   I reject: the principle of pure, rigorous right, of that terrible\n   right which the Roman compared to an unsheathed sword, _jus\n   strictum_, and which rules individuals of the same sex among\n   themselves, being different from that which governs the relations\n   between individuals of different sexes.\n\n   \"What is this principle, differing from justice, and which,\n   notwithstanding, would not exist without justice; which all men\n   feel in the depth of their souls, and of which you women alone\n   have no idea? Is it love? nothing more? I leave it to you to\n   divine. And if your penetration succeeds in clearing up this\n   mystery, I consent, Madam, to sign you a certificate of genius;\n   _Et eris mihi magnus Apollo_. But then you will have given me the\n   cause.\n\n   \"Such, Madam, in a few words, are the conclusions to which I have\n   arrived, and which the reading of your book surely will not\n   modify. Notwithstanding, as it is absolutely possible that your\n   personal observations may have led you to diametrically opposite\n   results, good faith in the discussion and respect for our readers\n   and ourselves exact that, before entering upon the controversy, a\n   reciprocal interchange of all the documents that we have\n   collected should be made between us. You may take cognizance of\n   mine.\n\n   \"One other condition, which I entreat you, Madam, to take in good\n   part, and from which I shall not depart under any pretext, is\n   that you shall choose yourself a male sponsor.\n\n   \"You, who have declared yourself so energetically on this point,\n   would not wish your adversary to make the least sacrifice to\n   gallantry in so serious a discussion; and you are right. But I,\n   Madam, who am so far from admitting your pretensions, cannot\n   thus release myself from the obligations which manly and\n   honorable civility prescribes towards ladies; and as I propose,\n   besides, to make you serve as a subject of experiment; as, after\n   having made the autopsy of five or six women of the greatest\n   merit for the instruction of my readers, I count also on making\n   yours, you will conceive that it is quite impossible for me to\n   argue from you, of you, and with you, without exposing myself at\n   every word to a violation of all the rules of conventionality.\n\n   \"I know, Madam, that such a condition will annoy you; it is one\n   of the disadvantages of your position to which you must submit\n   courageously. You are a plaintiff, and, as a woman, you affirm\n   that you are oppressed. Appear, then, before the judgment seat of\n   incorruptible public opinion with this tyrannous chain which\n   rouses your ire, and which, according to me, exists only in your\n   disordered imagination. You will be but the more interesting for\n   it. Besides, you would deride me if, while sustaining the\n   superiority of man, I should begin by according to you the\n   equality of woman by disputing with you on an equal footing of\n   companionship. You have not counted, I imagine, upon my falling\n   into this inconsistency.\n\n   \"You will not lack for champions, besides. I expect of your\n   courtesy, Madam, that he whom you shall select as my antagonist,\n   who will sign and affirm all your articles, and assume the\n   responsibility of your affirmations and replies, shall be worthy\n   of both you and me; so that, in fine, I shall not have a right to\n   complain that you have pitted me against a man of straw.\n\n   \"What has most surprised me, since this hypothesis of the\n   equality of the sexes, renewed by the Greeks as well as by many\n   others, has become known among us, has been to see that it\n   numbered among its partisans almost as many men as women. I\n   sought a long time for the reason of this strange fact, which I\n   at first attributed to chivalric zeal; I think now that I have\n   found it. It is not to the advantage of the knights. I shall be\n   glad, Madam, for their sake and yours, if this serious\n   examination should prove that the new emancipators of woman are\n   the most lofty, the broadest, and the most progressive, if not\n   the most masculine minds of the age.\n\n   \"You say, Madam, that women have a weakness for soldiers. It is\n   doubtless on this account that you have lashed me soundly. _He\n   who loveth, chasteneth._ When I was three years and a half old,\n   my mother, to get rid of me, sent me to a school-mistress of the\n   neighborhood, an excellent woman, called Madelon. One day she\n   threatened to whip me for some piece of mischief. It made me\n   furious. I snatched her switch from her hand, and flung it in her\n   face. I was always a disobedient subject. I shall be glad,\n   therefore, to find that you do not assume towards me castigating\n   airs, which it does not belong to a man to return; but I leave\n   this to your discretion. Strike, redouble the blows, do not spare\n   me; and if I should chance to grow restive under the rod, believe\n   me none the less, Madam, your affectionate servant and\n   compatriot,\n\n    \"PROUDHON.\"\n\n\nTaking up the discussion in turn, I replied as follows, in the ensuing\nFebruary number:--\n\n   I am forbidden, sir, to answer your letter in the indecorous\n   style which you have deemed proper to assume towards me:\n\n   By respect for the gravity of my subject;\n\n   By respect for our readers;\n\n   By respect for myself.\n\n   You find yourself ill at ease in the Popilian circle that has\n   been traced around you by the hand of a woman; all understand\n   this, I among the rest. Ill-armed for defence, worse armed,\n   perhaps, for attack, you would like to escape; but your skill as\n   a tactician will avail you nothing; you shall not quit the fatal\n   circle till vanquished, either by me, or by yourself, if you\n   confess your weakness on the point in litigation, by continuing\n   to refuse a discussion under flimsy pretexts, or, lastly, by\n   public opinion, which will award to you the quality of\n   inconsistency, the least desirable of all to a dialectician.\n\n   This being understood, I must tell you that, personally, I am\n   satisfied that you should attack, in _the rights of woman_, the\n   cause of justice and progress. It is an augury of success to this\n   cause; you have always been fatal to all that you have sought to\n   sustain.\n\n   It is true that your attitude in this question makes you _the\n   ally of the dogmatism of the Middle Age_; it is true that the\n   _official representatives_ of this dogmatism avail themselves, at\n   the present time, of your arguments and your name to maintain\n   their influence over women, and through them over men and\n   children; and this in order to revive the past, to stifle the\n   future. Is this your intention? I do not believe it. You are, in\n   my eyes, a subverter, a destroyer, in whom instinct sometimes\n   gets the better of intellect, and from whom it shuts out a clear\n   view of the consequences of his writings. Formed for strife, you\n   must have adversaries; and, in default of enemies, you cruelly\n   fall on those who are fighting in the same ranks with yourself.\n   In all your writings, one feels that the second part of\n   education--that which inspires respect and love of woman--is\n   completely wanting in you.\n\n   Let us come to your letter.\n\n   You reproach me with having made _forty paralogisms_; it was your\n   duty at least to have cited one of these. However, let us see.\n\n   You say: between man and woman there is a separation of _the same\n   nature as that which the difference of race establishes between\n   animals_.\n\n   Woman, by nature and destination, is _neither associate, nor\n   citizen, nor functionary_.\n\n   She is, until marriage, only _apprentice_, at most,\n   _under-superintendent_ in the social workshop; she is a _minor_\n   in the family, and _does not form a part of the commonwealth_.\n\n   You conceive of no destiny for her outside of the household: she\n   can be only _housewife_ or _courtesan_.\n\n   She is incapable _of understanding and of governing herself_.\n\n   To make a paralogism is to draw a conclusion from false premises;\n   now did I conclude from such in saying:\n\n   In order that all these paradoxes may become truths, you have to\n   prove:\n\n   That man and woman are not of the same race;\n\n   That they can be reproduced separately;\n\n   That their common product is a mixed breed or a mule;\n\n   That difference of races corresponds to difference of rights.\n\n   You have to define for us an association, and also the nature of\n   a citizen or a functionary.\n\n   You have to prove that woman is less useful than man in society;\n\n   That, at the present time, she is necessarily a housewife, when\n   she is not a courtesan;\n\n   That she is destitute of intellect, that she knows nothing of\n   government.\n\n   You pretend that woman has not a right _to demand for herself\n   special legislation_.\n\n   Was I guilty of a paralogism in pointing out to you that it is\n   not she, _but you_, who demand this, since you lay down as a\n   principle the inequality of the sexes before human law?\n\n   All that you say relatively to the _pretended_ inferiority of\n   woman and the conclusions which you draw from it applying to\n   human races inferior to our own, it would be easy for me to\n   demonstrate that the consequence of your principles is the\n   _re-establishment of slavery_. The nearest perfect has the right\n   to take advantage of the weakest, instead of becoming his\n   educator. An admirable doctrine, full of the spirit of progress,\n   full of generosity! I compliment you most sincerely on it.\n\n   You say that labor specialized is the great emancipator of man;\n   that labor, conscience, liberty, and reason, find only in\n   themselves their right to exist and to act; that these pure\n   forces constitute the human person, _which is sacred_.\n\n   You lay down the principle that the law is the same for all; so\n   that, to establish exceptions, it would be necessary to prove\n   that the individuals excepted are _above_ or _beneath_ the human\n   species.\n\n   You say that social equilibrium is the equalization of the strong\n   and the weak; that all have the same rights, not through that\n   which distinguishes them from each other, but through _that\n   which is common to them_,--_the quality of human beings_.\n\n   Was I guilty of paralogisms in saying to you:\n\n   Then you cannot, by reason of her weakness or even of a supposed\n   inferiority, exclude woman from equality of right: your\n   principles interdict it, unless you prove:\n\n   _That she is superior or inferior to the human species, and that\n   she does not form a part of it;_\n\n   _That she is destitute of conscience, of justice, and of reason;\n   that she does not labor, that she does not execute specialties of\n   labor._\n\n   It is evident, that your doctrine concerning general right is in\n   contradiction to your doctrine concerning the right of women; it\n   is evident that you are very inconsequent, and that, however\n   skillful you may be, you cannot extricate yourself from this\n   embarrassment.\n\n   In what you call an answer, there are a few passages that are\n   worth the trouble of pausing to consider.\n\n   You ask _what impels the bravest, the most distinguished among us\n   to an assault on paternal and marital supremacy_.\n\n   You do not comprehend the movement, or you would have said\n   _masculine supremacy_.\n\n   In my turn, I ask you:\n\n   What would have impelled Proudhon, a Roman slave, to play the\n   part of Spartacus?\n\n   What would have impelled Proudhon, a feudal serf, to organize a\n   Jacquerie?\n\n   What would have impelled Proudhon, a black slave, to become a\n   Toussaint L'Ouverture?\n\n   What would have impelled Proudhon, a Russian serf, to take the\n   character of Poutgachef?\n\n   What would have impelled Proudhon, a citizen of '89, to\n   overthrow the privileges of the nobility and the clergy?\n\n   What would impel Proudhon ... but I will not touch on reality.\n\n   What would Proudhon have replied to all the holders of\n   _prerogatives_ and _supremacy_, who would not have failed on\n   their part to have put to him the na\u00efve question: \"Ah! what does\n   this vile slave, this unworthy serf, this audacious and stupid\n   citizen want of us, then? _To which of our faculties, our\n   virtues, our prerogatives does he aspire? Is this the cry of his\n   outraged nature, or an aberration of his understanding?_\"\n\n   The answer that Proudhon would make, is that which will be made\n   to him by all women who have attained majority.\n\n   There is in the brain of woman, say you, an organ which the\n   masculine mind alone is capable of setting in motion. Render the\n   service then to science of pointing it out and demonstrating its\n   manner of working. As to the other organ of which you speak, it\n   is its inertia, doubtless, that has caused it to be defined by\n   some, _parvum animal furibondum, octo ligamentis alligatum_.\n   Before choosing anatomical and physiological facts as proofs of\n   your assertions, consult some learned physician; such is the\n   counsel given you, not only by my _obstetrical, but also by my\n   medical sagacity_.\n\n   You offer to acquaint me with your _direct_ and _positive_\n   observations. What, Sir! has it been possible for you in a few\n   weeks to delve into the depths of the healthy and the diseased\n   organization! to go through the whole labyrinth of functions\n   implicated in the questions. It is more than miraculous; despite\n   my good will, I cannot believe it, unless you prove that you are\n   a _prophet_ in communication with some deity. Shall I tell you\n   what I really think? It is that you have studied these matters\n   neither _directly_ nor _indirectly_, and that it belongs to me to\n   tell you _that you do not understand woman; that you do not know\n   the first word of the question_. Your five or six _purely_ moral\n   and intellectual autopsies prove only one thing; namely, your\n   inexperience in physiology. You have na\u00efvely mistaken the scalpel\n   of your imagination for that of science.\n\n   With regard to autopsies, you tell me that you are awaiting my\n   promised work, in order to make mine. It would be doubtless a\n   great honor to be stretched on your dissecting table in such good\n   company as you promise me, but the instruction of my future\n   readers does not permit me to enjoy this satisfaction. I shall\n   not send my book to press until your own shall have appeared, for\n   I, too, intend to make your autopsy; dissect me therefore now; I\n   promise you on my side that I will perform my duty\n   conscientiously, properly and delicately.\n\n   \"Woman,\" you say, \"being weaker than man with respect to\n   _muscular force_, is not less inferior to him with respect to\n   INDUSTRIAL, ARTISTIC, PHILOSOPHICAL AND MORAL POWER; so that if\n   the condition of woman in society be regulated, as you demand for\n   her, _by the same justice as the condition of man_, it is all\n   over with her; she is a slave.\"\n\n   Terrible man, you will be then always inconsistent, you will\n   always contradict yourself and facts!\n\n   What do you hold as the basis of right? _The simple quality of\n   being human_; everything that distinguishes individuals\n   disappears before right. Well! even though it were true that\n   women were inferior to men, would it follow that their rights\n   were not the same? According to you, by no means, if they form a\n   part of the human species. There are not two kinds of justice,\n   there is but one; there are not two kinds of right, there is but\n   one in the absolute sense. The recognition and respect of\n   individual autonomy in the lowest of human beings as well as in\n   the man and woman of genius is the law which should preside over\n   social relations; must a woman tell you this!\n\n   Let us now examine the value of your series of _man and woman_.\n\n   With respect to the reproduction of the species, they form a\n   series; this is beyond dispute.\n\n   As to the rest, do they form a series? No.\n\n   _If it were a law_ that woman is _muscularly_ weaker than man,\n   the strongest woman would be weaker than the weakest man; facts\n   demonstrate the contrary daily.\n\n   _If it were a law_ that women are inferior to men in _industrial\n   power_, the most skillful woman would be inferior in industrial\n   pursuits to the least skillful man; now facts demonstrate daily\n   that there are women who are excellent manufacturers and\n   excellent managers; men who are unskilled in and unsuited to this\n   kind of pursuits.\n\n   _If it were a law_ that women are inferior to men in _artistic\n   power_, the best female artist would be inferior to the most\n   indifferent male artist; now facts daily demonstrate the\n   contrary; there are more great female than male tragedians; many\n   men are mediocre in music and painting, and many women, on the\n   other hand, remarkable in both respects, etc., etc.\n\n   What follows from all this? That your series is false, since\n   facts destroy it. How did you form it? The process is a curious\n   study. You chose a few remarkable men, in whom, by a convenient\n   process of abstraction, you beheld _all_ men, even to cretins;\n   you here took a few women, without taking into account in the\n   slightest degree any differences of culture, instruction, and\n   surroundings, and compared them with these eminent men, taking\n   care to forget those that might have embarrassed you; then,\n   deducing generals from particulars, creating two entities, you\n   drew your conclusions. A strange manner of reasoning, truly! You\n   have fallen into the mania of _imposing rules on Nature, instead\n   of studying Nature's rules_, and deserve that I should apply your\n   own words to you: \"The greatest part of the philosophical\n   aberrations and chimeras have arisen from attributing to logical\n   series _a reality that they do not possess, and endeavoring to\n   explain the nature of man by abstractions_.\"\n\n   Still, if this were to strengthen your doctrines concerning the\n   _basis_ of right, it might be comprehended; but it is to\n   overthrow them!\n\n   You transform yourself into a Sphinx, to propose to me a riddle.\n   \"What is that right,\" you say, \"_which is not justice, and which,\n   notwithstanding, would not exist without it_, which presides over\n   the relations of both sexes, the _jus strictum_ governing only\n   individuals of the same sex. If you divine it, you will have\n   given me the cause.\"\n\n   It is not necessary to be _the great Apollo_, to divine that it\n   is the _right of grace, of mercy_, towards an inferior that is\n   not armed with strict right.\n\n   If I have divined rightly, you have simply begged the question by\n   supposing _that resolved which I dispute_. I maintain that there\n   is only one _right_, that _one single_ _right presides over the\n   rights of individuals and of sexes_, and that the right of mercy\n   belongs to the domain of sentiment.\n\n   You wish it proved that the new emancipators of woman are the\n   most elevated, the broadest, and the most progressive minds of\n   the age. Rejoice, your wish is accomplished: a simple comparison\n   between them and their adversaries will prove it to you.\n\n   The emancipators, taking woman in the cradle of humanity, see her\n   marching slowly towards civil emancipation. The intelligent\n   disciples of progress, they wish, by extending a fraternal hand\n   to her, to aid her in fulfilling her destiny.\n\n   The non-emancipators, denying the historical law, regardless of\n   the progressive and parallel movement of the populace, woman, and\n   the industrial arts towards affranchisement, wish to thrust her\n   back far beyond the Middle Age, to the days of Romulus and the\n   Hebrew patriarchs.\n\n   The emancipators, believing in individual autonomy, respecting\n   it, and recognizing it in woman, wish to aid her to conquer it.\n   Judging of the need that a free being has of liberty by the need\n   that they have of it themselves, they are consistent.\n\n   The non-emancipators, blinded by pride, perverted by a love of\n   dominion as unbridled as unintelligent, desire liberty only _for\n   themselves_. These egotists, so suspicious of those that menace\n   their own freedom, wish half the human species to be in their\n   chains.\n\n   The emancipators have enough heart and ideality to desire a\n   companion with whom they can exchange sentiment and thought, and\n   who can improve them in some respects and be improved by them in\n   others; they love and respect woman.\n\n   The non-emancipators, without ideality, without love, chained to\n   their senses and their pride, despise woman; and wish to have in\n   her only a _female, a servant, a machine to produce young ones_.\n   They are _males, they are not yet men_.\n\n   The emancipators desire perfection of the species, in a\n   three-fold point of view: physical, moral, and intellectual. They\n   know that races cannot be improved without selecting and\n   perfecting the mothers.\n\n   The non-emancipators are bent upon something quite different from\n   the improvement of the species: let their children be lacking in\n   intelligence, malicious, ugly, or deformed; they think much less\n   of this than of being _masters_. Do they know enough of\n   physiology to have reflected that the faculties _depend on\n   organization_, that organization is capable of modification, that\n   modifications are transmitted, that woman has a great share in\n   this transmission, a greater share, perhaps, than that of man? It\n   is therefore _essential_ to place her in a condition to perform\n   this great function in the manner most useful to humanity.\n\n   The emancipators desire humanity to go forward, to vibrate no\n   longer between the past and the future; they know the influence\n   that women possess, first over children, then over men; they know\n   that woman cannot serve progress _unless she finds it to her\n   interest to do so_; that she will find it so only through\n   liberty; that she will love it only if her intellect is elevated\n   by study, and her heart purified from the petty selfishness of\n   home by the predominating love of the great human family. As they\n   desire the end sincerely, they sincerely desire the means; so\n   long as half the human race shall labor as it is doing to destroy\n   the edifice constructed by _a few_ _members_ of the other half;\n   so long as half the human race, _the one that secretly governs\n   the other_, shall have its face turned towards the past, the\n   landmarks that point to the future will be threatened with being\n   torn up. Do you consider it a crime in the emancipators to\n   comprehend this, to seek to conjure down the peril; and do you\n   consider a virtue in the non-emancipators the foolish pride that\n   places a cataract over their eyes?\n\n   A few words more, and I shall have done. You would rather, you\n   say, that I should not assume castigating airs with you. But have\n   you really the right to complain of it, you who have constituted\n   yourself the chief whipper-in of the economists and the\n   socialists? I shall never go so far towards you as you have gone\n   towards them. You must resign yourself to my abrupt, sometimes\n   harsh style. I am implacable towards whatever appears to me false\n   and unjust; and were you my brother, I should not war against you\n   less sharply; before all ties of affection and family, should\n   come the love of justice and humanity.\n\n   I owe now to my readers and to you, sir, the exposition of the\n   thesis that I undertake to sustain; for the phrase, _the\n   emancipation of women_ has been, and is, quite variously\n   interpreted.\n\n   With respect to _right_, man and woman are equal, whether the\n   equality of faculties be admitted or rejected.\n\n   But for a truth to be useful, it must be adapted to the\n   surroundings into which we seek to introduce it.\n\n   Absolute right being recognized, the practice of it remains. In\n   practice, I see two kinds of rights: woman is ripe for the\n   exercise of one of them; but I acknowledge that the practice of\n   the second would be at present dangerous, by reason of the\n   education that the majority of them have received. You\n   comprehend me, without making it necessary for me to explain\n   myself more clearly in a Review in which social and political\n   subjects are interdicted.\n\n\n   The directors of the _Revue_ having informed me that my adversary\n   refused to continue the discussion, I made the following\n   recapitulation of his creed, concerning the rights and nature of\n   woman.\n\n\n   To the editors of the _Revue Philosophique et Religieuse_:\n\n   You inform me that M. Proudhon will not reply to the questions\n   that I have put to him; I have neither the means nor the wish to\n   constrain him to do so. I shall not inquire into the motives of\n   his determination; my business now is only to make an exposition\n   of his creed, which may be summed up in this wise:\n\n   \"I believe that between man and woman, there is a separation of\n   the same nature as that which the difference of race places\n   between animals;\n\n   \"I believe that, by nature and by destination, woman is neither\n   associate, nor functionary, nor citizen;\n\n   \"I believe that, in the social workshop, she is, until her\n   marriage, only apprentice, at most under-superintendent;\n\n   \"I believe that she is a minor in the family, art, science,\n   manufactures, and philosophy, and that she is _nothing_ in the\n   commonwealth;\n\n   \"I believe that she can only be housewife or courtesan;\n\n   \"I believe that she is incapable of understanding and of\n   governing herself;\n\n   \"I believe firmly that the basis of the equality of rights is in\n   the simple quality of being human; now, woman being unable to\n   have rights equal to those of man, I affirm that she does not\n   belong to the human species.\"\n\nIs Proudhon conscious how far his creed is in opposition to science, to\nfacts, to the law of progress, to the tendencies of our own age, and does\nhe dare to attempt to justify it by proofs?\n\nDoes he feel that this creed classes him among the abettors of the\ndogmatism of the Middle Age, and does he recoil before such a\nresponsibility?\n\nIf this were the case, I should praise him for his prudent silence, and\nit would be my warmest desire that he should keep it forever on the\nquestion that divides us. To treat a subject, it is necessary to love and\nunderstand it; I dare not say that Proudhon does not love woman, but I do\naffirm that he does not understand her; he sees in her nothing more than\nthe female of man; his peculiar organization seems to render him unfit\nfor the investigation of such a subject. He promises, in the work that he\nis preparing, to treat of the sphere and the rights of women; if his\ndoctrine has for its basis the paradoxical affirmations of his creed, I\nhope that he will this time take pains to rest them at least upon the\nsemblances of proofs, which I shall examine with all the attention of\nwhich I am capable.\n\nBy shrinking from discussion, he cannot escape my criticism.\n\n\nThe two studies of Proudhon are simply the development of this creed.\n\nI promised to dissect the author; therefore, I shall do so.\n\nLet me not be reproached with being pitiless; Proudhon has deserved it.\n\nLet me not be reproached with being a reasoning machine; with such an\nadversary, one should be nothing else.\n\nLet me not be reproached with being harsh; Proudhon has shown a harshness\nand injustice with respect to women, even the most illustrious, that\nexceed all bounds. If I am harsh, I will endeavor on my part not to be\nunjust.\n\n\nI.\n\nWell, M. Proudhon, you have sought war with women! War you shall have.\n\nYou have said, not without reason, that the Comtois are an obstinate\nrace; now, I am your countrywoman; and as woman generally carries virtues\nand failings farther than man, I intend to outdo you in obstinacy.\n\nI have raised the banner under which your daughters will one day take\nshelter if they are worthy of the name they bear; I will hold it with a\nfirm hand and will never suffer it to be struck down; against such as\nyou, I have the heart and claws of a lioness.\n\nYou begin by saying that you by no means desired to treat of the\ninequality of the sexes, but that half a dozen insurgent women with\nink-stained fingers having defied you to discuss the question, you will\nestablish by facts and documents the _physical, intellectual and moral\ninferiority of woman_; that you will prove that her emancipation is the\nsame thing as her prostitution, and will take her defence in hand against\nthe rambling talk of a few impure women whom sin has rendered\nmad.--(_Vol._ III., p. 337.)\n\nI alone, by shutting you up in a circle of contradictions, have dared\ndefy you to discuss the question; I sum up, therefore, in my own person,\nthe few impure women whom sin has rendered mad.\n\nInsults of this sort cannot touch me; the esteem, the regard, the\nprecious friendship of eminently respectable men and women suffice to\nreduce unworthy insinuations to naught. I should not notice them, with\nsuch contempt do they inspire me, were it not necessary to tell you that\nthe time has gone by when one might hope to stifle the voice of a woman\nby attacking her purity.\n\nIf you do not ask the man who demands his rights and seeks to prove their\nlegitimacy, whether he is upright, chaste, etc., no more have you the\nright to ask the question of the woman who makes the same claim.\n\nWere I therefore so unfortunate as to be the vilest of mortals as regards\nchastity, this would not at all lessen the value of my claim.\n\nI greatly dislike any justification, but I owe it to the sacred cause\nthat I defend, I owe it to my friends, to tell you that the moral\neducation which my sainted, lamented mother gave me, together with\nscientific studies, serious philosophy, and continual occupation, have\nkept me in what is commonly called the right path, and have strengthened\nthe horror that I feel for all tyranny, whether it be styled man or\ntemperament.\n\nYou accuse your biographer of having committed an indignity in directing\nan accusation against a woman, because this woman was your wife; do you\nnot commit an indignity yourself in insulting many others?\n\nAnd if you blame those who calumniate the morals of Proudhon because he\nis not of their opinion, in what light do you think that men will regard\nyour calumnious insinuations against women, because they do not think\nlike you?\n\nYou claim that we have no morality, because we lack respect towards the\ndignity of others; who has set us this detestable example more than you?\nYou, who style yourself the champion of the principles of '89--who are\nthe men and women whom you attack?\n\nThey who are in different degrees, and from different stand points, in\nfavor of these principles.\n\nYour anger has no bounds against George Sand, our great prose writer, the\nauthor of the bulletins of the republic of '48. You depreciate Madame de\nSt\u00e4el, whom you have not read, and who was in advance of most of the\nmasculine writers of her epoch.\n\nTwo scaffolds are erected, two women mount thereon: Madame Roland and\nMarie Antoinette. I, a woman, will not cast insult on the decapitated\nqueen, dying with dignity and courage; no, I bow before the block,\nwhatever head may lay on it, and wipe away my tears. But, Marie\nAntoinette died the victim of the faults that her princely education had\ncaused her to commit against the modern principles; while Madame Roland,\nthe chaste and noble wife, died for the revolution, and died blessing it.\n\nWhence comes it that you greet the queen with your sympathies, while you\nhave nought but words of blame and contempt for the revolutionist? And\nthe men that belong to the great party of the future, how do you style\nthem?\n\nThe Girondins, _effeminate_;\n\nRobespierre and his adherents, _eunuchs_;\n\nThe gentle Bernardin de St. Pierre, _effeminate_;\n\nM. Legouv\u00e9 and those who think like him concerning the emancipation of\nwomen, _effeminate_;\n\nM. de Girardin, _absurd_;\n\n_B\u00e9ranger, a pitiable author, and effeminate_; Jean Jacques, not only the\nprince of _effeminates_, but _the greatest enemy of the people and the\nrevolution_--he who was evidently the chief author of our \"French\nRevolution.\"\n\nAre we not justified in asking you, whether you are for or against the\nRevolution?\n\nM. Proudhon, you have forfeited your right to all consideration, since\nyou have none for those who have neither offended you or offered you\nprovocation, those who have never pretended to reduce you to servitude;\nmen have lacked courage; they ought to have stopped you when you began to\ndescend to insulting personalities; what they have not done, I, a woman,\nwill do, fearing nothing, or no one, except my own conscience.\n\nProudhon, the greatest enemy of the people, is the writer who, treading\nunder foot reason and conscience, science and facts, calls to his aid all\nthe ignorance, all the despotism of the past, to mislead the spirit of\nthe people with respect to the rights of half the human species.\n\nProudhon, the greatest enemy of the revolution, is he who shows it to\nwomen as a toy; who detaches them from its holy cause by confounding it\nwith the negation of their rights; who attacks and vilifies the advocates\nof progress; who dares, in fine, in the name of the principles of general\nemancipation, to proclaim the social annihilation and the conjugal\nservitude of one entire half of humanity.\n\nBehold the enemy of the people and of the revolution!\n\n\nII.\n\nI had proceeded thus far in my reply when, pausing to take breath and to\nreflect, I grew calm.\n\nWhat! said I to myself, have I then no more sense than to take in earnest\nthat shapeless thing honored by the name of theory by the good people who\nare so bewildered by the noise of Proudhon's drum and tam-tam that they\nsee stars at noon-day and the sun at midnight? Let me be calm, let me not\ngive to the affair more importance than it possesses; and since I must\nset forth this thing to my readers, let me do it in a fitting tone. We\nwill leave Proudhon to explain himself in his own words.\n\nNo sooner had I taken this good resolution, than I evoked M. Proudhon,\nand said to him in all humility: Master, I come to you that you may\ndefine for me the nature of woman, and also something of the nature of\nman.\n\nPROUDHON. You do well, for I alone am capable of instructing you; listen\nthen to me.\n\n\"The complete human being, _adequate to his destiny_, I speak of the\nphysical, is the male, who, through his virility, attains the highest\ndegree of muscular and nervous tension comporting with his nature and\nend, and thence, the maximum of action in labor and in battle.\n\n\"Woman is a DIMINUTIVE of man, lacking one organ to become a pubescent\nyouth.\n\n\"She is a _receptacle for the germs that man alone produces_, a place of\n_incubation_, like the earth for the seed of the wheat; an _organ inert_\nin itself, and purposeless with respect to the woman. Such an\norganization--_presupposes the subordination of the subject_.\n\n\"In herself, I speak still of the physical, woman has no reason to exist;\n_she is an instrument of reproduction_ which it has pleased nature to\nchoose in preference to any other.\n\n\"Woman, in this first count, is inferior to man: _a sort of mean term\nbetween him and the rest of the animal kingdom_.\"--_Justice_, Vol. III.,\netc.\n\nAnd remark that I am not alone in my opinion:\n\n\"Woman is not only different from man,\" says Paracelsus, \"she is\ndifferent because she is lesser, because her sex constitutes for her one\nfaculty less. Wherever virility is wanting, the subject is imperfect;\nwherever it is taken away, the subject deteriorates. Woman lacks nothing\nin the physical point of view except _to produce germs_.\n\n\"Likewise, in the intellectual point of view, woman possesses\nperceptions, memory and imagination, she is capable of attention,\nreflection, and judgment; what does she lack?\n\n\"The power of producing germs, that is, ideas.--_Id._\n\nNow, follow my reasoning closely: It being admitted that _strength has\nsome weight in the establishment of right_; it being admitted, on the\nother hand, that woman is one third weaker than man, she will then be to\nman, in physical respects, as two is to three. Consequently, in the\nsocial workshop, the value of the products of woman will be one third\nless than that of the products of man; therefore, in the division of\nsocial advantages, the proportion will be the same: _thus says justice_.\n\n\"Man will always be stronger and will always produce more,\" _which\nsignifies that man will be the master, and that woman will obey, dura\nlex, sed lex_.\"--_Id._\n\nBesides, reflect that woman falls to the charge of man during gestation;\nher physical weakness, her infirmities, her maternity, exclude her\n_inevitably_ and _judicially_ from all political, doctrinal and\nindustrial direction.--_Id._\n\nWe will now proceed to the second point. But first, mark well that woman,\nlike all else, is autonomic; woman, considered apart from the influence\nof man, is the thesis; woman, considered under the influence of man, is\nthe antithesis; it is the thesis that we are now examining. Let us\ntherefore approach the _thetic_ woman in the intellectual relation.\n\nWe will first admit the principle that _thought is proportional to\nforce_; whence we have a right to conclude that man possesses a stronger\nintellect than woman. Thus we see man alone possessing genius. As to\nwoman, she is nothing in science; we owe to her no invention, _not even\nher distaff and spindle_. She never _generalizes_, never _synthetizes_;\nher mind is anti-metaphysical; _she cannot produce any regular work, not\neven a romance_; _she composes nothing but medleys, monsters_; \"she makes\nepigrams, satire; does not know how to express a judgment in set terms,\nnor assign its causes; it was not she who created abstract words, such as\ncause, time, space, quantity, relation. _Woman is a true table rapping\nmedium._\"--_Id._\n\nI have already told you that woman does not produce intellectual germs\nany more than physical germs; her intellectual inferiority tells upon the\nquality of the product as much as upon the intensity and duration of the\naction and, as in this feeble nature, the defect of the idea results from\nthe lack of energy of the thought, it may be truly said that woman\npossesses a mind _essentially_ false, of irremediable _falsity_.\n\n\"Disconnected ideas, contradictory reasonings, chimeras taken for\nrealities, unreal analogies erected into principles, a tendency of mind\ninclining inevitably towards annihilation: such is the intellect of\nwoman.\"\n\nYes, woman \"_is a passive, enervating being, whose conversation exhausts\nlike her embraces. He who wishes to preserve entire the strength of his\nmind and body will flee her._\"--_Id._\n\n\"_Without man, who is to her prophet and word, she would not emerge from\nthe bestial condition._\"\n\nAUTHOR. Calm yourself, Master, and tell me whether it is true that you\nhave dealt harshly with literary women.\n\nPROUDHON. Literary women! As if there were any! \"The woman author does\nnot exist; she is a contradiction. The part of woman in literature is the\nsame as in manufactures; she is useful where genius is no longer of\nservice, like a needle or a bobbin.\n\n\"By cutting out of a woman's book all that is borrowed, imitated,\ngleaned, and common-place, we reduce it to a few pretty sayings;\nphilosophy on nothing. To the community of ideas, woman brings nothing of\nher own, any more than to generation.\"\n\nAUTHOR. Ah! I understand: you mean that, in the character of author, the\nwoman of genius does not exist. But in this respect, among the number of\nmen that write how many are there who have genius, and who never borrow\nfrom any one?\n\nPROUDHON. I grant that there are many effeminate men; which does not\nalter the fact that woman would do better _to go and iron her collars_\nthan to meddle with writing; for, \"it may be affirmed without fear of\ncalumny, that the woman who dabbles with philosophy and writing destroys\nher progeny by the labor of her brain and her kisses which savor of man;\nthe safest and most honorable way for her is to renounce home life and\nmaternity; destiny has branded her on the forehead; made only for love,\nthe title of concubine if not of courtesan suffices her.\"--_Id._\n\nLet us now consider the _thetic_ woman in the moral point of view. We\nwill admit in the first place the principle _that virtue exists in the\nratio of strength and intellect_, whence we have a right to conclude that\nman is more virtuous than woman. Do not laugh; it disturbs my ideas. I go\nfurther; man alone is virtuous; man alone has the sense of justice; man\nalone has the comprehension of right. Tell me, I pray you, \"what produces\nin man this energy of will, this confidence in himself, this frankness,\nthis daring, all these powerful qualities that we have agreed to\ndesignate by the single word, morality. What inspires him with the\nsentiment of his dignity, the scorn of falsehood, the hatred of\ninjustice, the abhorence of all tyranny? Nothing else than the\nconsciousness of his strength and reason.\"\n\nAUTHOR. But then, Master, if man is all this, why do you reproach the men\nof our times with lack of courage, of dignity, of justice, of reason, of\ngood faith? When I take up in minute detail the terrible charges which\nyou have fulminated against the masculine race, I can make nothing of the\nmeaning of the tirade you have just uttered.\n\nPROUDHON. Consider what you irreverently name a tirade, as the necessary\ncheck to feminine immorality.\n\nIt is only to set forth the truth that of all the differences that\nseparate her mind from ours, the conscience of woman is the most\ntrifling, her morality is of a different nature; what she regards as\nright and wrong is not identically the same as what man himself regards\nas right and wrong, so that, relatively to us, _woman may be styled an\nimmoral being_.\n\n\"_By her nature she is in a state of constant demoralization_, always on\nthis side or that of justice.... Justice is insupportable to her.... Her\nconscience is anti-judicial.\"\n\nShe is aristocratic, loves privileges and distinctions; \"in all\nrevolutions that have liberty and equality for their object, women make\nthe most resistance. They did more harm in the revolution of February\nthan all the powers of the masculine reaction combined.\n\n\"Women have so little judicial sense that the legislator who fixed the\nage of moral responsibility at sixteen for both sexes, might have delayed\nit till forty-five, for women. Woman's conscience is _decidedly of no\nvalue till this age_.\"\n\nIn herself, woman is _immodest_.\n\nIt is from man therefore that she receives modesty, \"which is the product\nof manly dignity, the corollary of justice.\n\n\"Woman has no other inclination, no other aptitude than love.\n\n\"In affairs of love, the initiative belongs truly to woman.\"--_Justice_,\n_Vol._ III., pp. 364, 366.\n\nAUTHOR. How many persons you will astonish, Master, by revealing to them\nthat _modesty comes from man_; that consequently all the young girls who\nhave been seduced, all the little girls whose corruptors and violators\nare punished by the courts, are but jades, who, through their initiative,\nhave caused men to forget their character as inspirers of chastity!\n\nYou enlighten me, illustrious Master; and I shall at once draw up a\nmemorial to demand that all seduced and violated women and girls shall be\npunished as they deserve; and that, to console the seducers, suborners,\ncorruptors and violators, poor innocent victims of feminine ferocity, for\nhaving sinned against the _corollary of justice and the product of manly\ndignity_, rose-trees shall be forced to blossom, in order that the\n_maires_ of the forty thousand communes of France and Algeria may crown\nthem winners of the roses.\n\nPROUDHON. Jest as you please; woman is nevertheless so perverse in her\nnature, that, through inclination, she seeks men who are ugly, old, and\nwicked.\n\nAUTHOR. Is not this somewhat exaggerated, Master?\n\nPROUDHON. (Forgetting what he has just said,)\n\n\"Woman always prefers a pretty, finical puppet to an honest man; a beau,\na knave can obtain from her all that he desires; she has nothing but\ndisdain for the man who is capable of sacrificing his love to his\nconscience.\"\n\nYou see what woman is: \"_unproductive by nature, inert, without industry\nor understanding, without justice, and without modesty_, she needs that a\nfather, a brother, a lover, a husband, a master, a man, in fine, should\ngive her that magnetic influence, if I may thus term it, which will\nrender her capable of manly virtues, of social and intellectual\nfaculties.\"--_Id._\n\nAnd as \"all her philosophy, her religion, her politics, her economy, her\nindustry are resolved in one word: Love;\n\n\"Now shall we make of this being belonging wholly to love, an overseer,\nan engineer, a captain, a merchant, a financier, an economist, an\nadministrator, a scholar, an artist, a professor, a philosopher, a\nlegislator, a judge, an orator, the general of an army, the head of a\nState?\n\n\"The question carries its answer within itself.\"--_Id._\n\nI have laid down and proved my thesis, I am about to draw my conclusions.\n\n\"Since in economical, political and social action, the strength of the\nbody and that of the mind concur and are multiplied, the one by the\nother, the physical and intellectual value of the man will be to the\nphysical and intellectual value of woman as 3 \u00d7 3 is to 2 \u00d7 2, or as 9 to\n4.\n\n\"In the moral, as in the physical and intellectual point of view, her\nvalue (that of woman,) is also as 2 to 3.\n\n\"Their share of influence, compared together, will be as 3 \u00d7 3 \u00d7 3 is to\n2 \u00d7 2 \u00d7 2 or as 27 to 8.\n\n\"According to these conditions, woman cannot pretend to counterbalance\nthe virile power; her subordination is inevitable. Both by nature, and\nbefore justice, she does not weigh the third of man.\"--_Id._\n\nDo you understand clearly?\n\nAUTHOR. Very clearly. Your theory, if theory there be, is only a tissue\nof paradoxes; your pretended principles _are contradicted by facts_, your\nconclusions _are equally contradicted by facts_; you _affirm_ like a\nrevelator, but you _never prove_, as a philosopher should do. There is so\nmuch ignorance and senseless metaphysics in all that you say, that I\nshould rather give you credit for bad faith than be compelled to despise\nyou.\n\nI have listened to you patiently while you have said to me, in saying it\nof all women:\n\nYou are inert, passive, you possess the germ of nothing;\n\nYou are a mean term between man and beast, you have no right to exist;\n\nYou are immoral, immodest, imbecile, aristocratic, the enemy of liberty,\nequality and justice.\n\nIn your turn, endeavor to listen to me calmly, while I refute your\nallegations by facts, by science and by reason.\n\n\nIII.\n\nThere is, by your own confession, but one good method of demonstration;\nthat of basing every affirmation _upon well established facts, not\ncontradicted by others, legitimately deduced_.\n\nLet us see how you have followed this method.\n\nIn order to prove that the _thetic_ woman, or woman considered apart from\nthe influence of man, is such as you depict her, it is necessary that you\nshould bring us face to face with an assemblage of such women, and\nafterwards, with another assemblage composed of men who have never been\nsubjected to the influence of women, that we may verify for ourselves the\nnative activity of the latter and the native inertness of the former.\nHave you had at your disposal, can you place at ours these proofs _de\nfacto_?\n\nNo; and if you neither have them nor can procure them, what is your\nthesis, if not the illusion of a brain sick with pride and with hatred of\nwoman?\n\n1. You say: man alone produces physical germs. Anatomy answers: _It is\nwoman that produces the germ_; the organ that performs this function in\nher, as in all other females, is the ovary.\n\n2. You say: woman is a diminutive of the man; she is an imperfect male;\nanatomy says: _man and woman are two distinct beings, each one\ncomplete_, each one furnished with a special organism, the one as\nnecessary as the other.\n\n3. You say with Paracelsus, of whom this is not the only absurdity:\n_where virility is wanting, the subject is imperfect; where it is taken\naway, the subject deteriorates_. Mere good sense replies: the being can\nonly be incomplete or deteriorate _when it differs from its type_; now\nthe type of woman is feminity not _masculinity_.... If, like you, I were\na lover of paradox, I would say: _man is an imperfect woman_, since it is\nthe woman that produces the germ; his part in reproduction is very\ndoubtful, and science may even learn some day to dispense with it. This\nis Auguste Comte's paradox; it is worth as much as yours.\n\nTo prove that woman is only an imperfect male, it is necessary to\nestablish by facts that man on being deprived of virility, finds the\norgans developed in him peculiar to woman, becomes qualified for\nconception, gestation, delivery, and giving suck. Now I have never\nlearned that any keeper of a seraglio had been transformed into an\nodahlic; have you?\n\n4. You say: the organs peculiar to woman are inert, and purposeless with\nrespect to herself; physiology answers: the labor that these organs\naccomplish is immense; pregnancy and the crisis that terminates it are\nincontestable proofs of this. The influence of these organs makes itself\nfelt, not only on the general health, but in the intellectual and moral\norder. Pathology, no less eloquent, depicts to us the grave disorders\nproduced among women by forced continence, incontinence, the excessive or\nperverted vitality of these organs which you pretend are inert.\n\n5. You say: woman is the soil, the place of incubation for the germ.\nAnatomy has told you in reply that the woman alone produces the germ.\nRead my reply to your friend Michelet on the subject of the resemblance\nof children and you will know what facts add to the answer of science.\nYour affirmation is no less absurd in the presence of these facts than\nthat of a simpleton who should pretend that the soil in which the seed of\nthe carnation or the oak is deposited, has the property of causing\nrosebushes or palm trees to spring up.\n\nFrom this _false_ supposition that woman has not physical germs, you\nconclude that she is destitute of intellectual and moral germs.... And do\nyou really dare accuse woman of thus _taking false analogies for\nprinciples_?\n\nGrant that when a man indulges in them thus wantonly, and mistakes them\nfor principles, we ought to be more inclined to laugh than to be vexed.\n\n6. You say that intellectually and morally, woman is in herself, nothing.\n\nNow, if I am not mistaken, you admit that our functions have our organs\nfor their basis, and you place the functions of intellect and morality in\nthe brain, according to Gall, or similarly.\n\nWell, Anatomy tells you: in both sexes, the cerebral mass is similar in\ncomposition and, adds Phrenology, in the number of organs. Biology adds:\nthe law of development of our organs is _exercise_, which supposes action\nand reaction, the result of which is the augmentation of the volume,\nconsistency and vitality of the organ exercised.\n\nThe point in question then, to convince your readers of the truth of\nyour affirmations, is to prove that _the two sexes are subjected to the\nsame exercise of the brain and to the same stimulus_, and that despite\nthis identity of education, woman constantly remains inferior. Have you\nproved this? Have you ever thought of doing so? No. For if you had, your\ntheory would have fallen to to the ground, since you would have been\nforced to acknowledge that man and woman cannot be alike, for we say to\nman from his infancy: resist, struggle;\n\nTo woman: yield, always submit.\n\nTo man: be yourself, speak your thoughts boldly, ambition is a virtue;\nyou can aspire to everything.\n\nTo woman: dissemble, calculate your slightest word, respect prejudices;\nmodesty, abnegation, such is your lot; you can attain to naught.\n\nTo man: knowledge, talent, courage will open every career of life to you,\nwill make you honored by all.\n\nTo woman: knowledge is useless to you; if you have it, you will pass for\na pedant, and if you have courage, you will be disdainfully called\n_virago_.\n\nTo man: for you are instituted lyceums, universities, special schools,\nhigh prizes; all the institutions through which your intellect can be\ndeveloped; all the libraries in which is accumulated the knowledge of the\npast.\n\nTo woman: for you is history in madrigals, the reading of prayer-books\nand novels. You have nothing to do with lyceums, special schools, high\nprizes, anything that would elevate your mind and enlarge your views; a\nlearned woman is ridiculous!\n\nMan must display the knowledge that he often possesses but superficially,\nwoman must hide what she really possesses.\n\nMan must appear courageous when he is often but a coward; woman must\nfeign timidity when in reality she is not afraid.\n\nFor where man is reputed great and sublime, woman is found ridiculous,\nsometimes odious.\n\nIf you had verified as you should have done, these diametrically opposite\nsystems of training, the one tending to develop and ennoble the being,\nthe other to degrade it and render it imbecile, instead of writing such\nabsurdities, you would have said to yourself: woman must really have the\ninitiative to resist the iniquitous system of repression that weighs upon\nher; she must have great elasticity to show herself so often superior to\nthe majority of men in intellect, and _always in morality_.\n\nI am curious to know what you males would be if subjected to the same\nsystem as we. Look at those who have not studied like you, and tell me\nwhether they are not in general beneath uncultivated women. Look then at\nthe men who have received a feminine education; have they not all the\naffectation, all the narrowness of mind of silly women?\n\nLook, on the contrary, at those women who, through the wish of their\nteachers or their own energy, have been subjected to masculine\ndiscipline, and tell me, on your conscience, whether they do not equal\nthe most intelligent, the firmest among you?\n\n7. You say: intellectual force is in proportion to physical force.\n_Facts_ reply: great thoughts, useful works, date from the period when\nthe physical forces began to decline. _Facts_ say also: the athletic\ntemperament, which is the most vigorous, is _the least intellectual_:\nstatuaries fully comprehend this, and sculpture Hercules with a large\nbody and a small head.\n\n8. You say that morality is in a direct ratio to physical and\nintellectual force combined. This pleasantry we will not refute; every\none knows too well that these things have no relation, and that facts\ncontradict your assertion.\n\n9. You say: woman being one third weaker, should have in social labor one\nthird the privileges of man.\n\nUpon what elements do you base this proportion? In order to establish it,\ndid you carry a dynamometer about through our districts and measure the\nstrength of each man and of each woman?\n\nBut were your affirmation true, is naught but _strength_ employed in\nlabor? Then, great economist, what do we do with _skill_? What Samsonian\nmuscles are needed to keep books, dispense justice, measure cloth, cut\nand sew garments, etc.!\n\nAnd what is the end of civilization if not to shift the employ of our\nstrength from ourselves to machinery that we may be at liberty to use\nonly our intellect and skill?\n\n10. You say: the infirmities, the weaknesses, the maternity of woman, and\nher aptitude for love, exclude her from all functions; she is _judicially\nand absolutely_ excluded from all political, industrial and doctrinal\ndirection.\n\nShe cannot be a political leader.... Yet history shows us numerous\nempresses, queens, regents and sovereign princesses who have governed\nwith wisdom and glory, and have shown themselves far superior to many\nmale sovereigns, unless Maria Theresa, Catherine II, Isabella and Blanche\nof Castile, and many others, are but myths.\n\nWoman cannot be a legislator.... All the women whom I have just cited\nhave been so, and many more beside.\n\nWomen can be neither philosophers nor professors.\n\nHypatia, massacred by the Christians, taught Philosophy with luster; in\nthe Middle Age and later, Italian women filled chairs of Philosophy, Law\nand Mathematics, and excited admiration and enthusiasm; in France, at the\npresent time, the Polytechnists are making great account of _the\ngeometrician_, Sophie Germain, who has taken it into her head to study\nKant.\n\nWoman cannot be a merchant or an administratrix... Yet a great portion of\nthe feminine population devote themselves to trade, or fill commercial\npositions. It is even admitted that the prosperity of commercial\nestablishments is almost always due to the administrative genius of\nwoman.\n\nWoman cannot be an overseer, a foreman of a workshop... Yet a host of\nwomen superintend workshops, invent, improve, carry on manufactures\nalone, and contribute, by their taste and activity, to the increase of\nthe national wealth and the industrial reputation of France.\n\nWoman cannot be artist... Yet every one knows that the greatest literary\nartist of our age is a woman, George Sand; yet every one bows before\nDuchesnois, Mars, Georges, Maxime, Ristori, Rachel, Dorval; yet every one\npauses before the beautiful paintings of Rosa Bonheur; yet since the\nrevival of the fine arts, every century has registered many celebrated\nwomen.\n\nWe meet women everywhere, working everywhere, competing with man.... Yet\nProudhon pretends that she can be nowhere, that she is excluded from\nevery place absolutely and _judicially_; that if she governs and\nlegislates like Maria Theresa, it is a contradiction;\n\nThat if she philosophises like Hypatia, it is a contradiction;\n\nThat if she commands an army and wins victories like the wife of the\nconqueror of Calais; if she fights like Jeanne d'Arc, Jeanne Hachette,\nMadame Garibaldi and thousands of others, it is a contradiction;\n\nThat if she is merchant, administratrix, superintendent of a workshop,\nlike thousands of women, it is a contradiction;\n\nThat if she is learned like Dr. Boivin, Sophie Germain, and many others,\nif she is a professor as are many among us, it is a contradiction.\n\nThe thesis sustained by Proudhon is, as we have just seen, contradicted\nby _science_ and by _facts_. We ask ourselves whether it is possible that\nhe is ignorant of the simplest notions of Anatomy and Biology; we ask\nourselves whether it is possible that he is so far blind as not to see\nthat woman _is in reality_ all that he pretends that she _absolutely and\njudicially_ cannot be in his absurd and insulting theory; and we conclude\nthat the author is struck with ignorance and voluntary blindness.\n\nYour reproaches are pleasant; from the origin of society, man has been\nthe master; now, the ancient world sunk beneath the weight of slavery,\nusury, and the most shameless vices; the modern world seems doomed to\nperish through inequality and its sad consequences, you yourself\nacknowledge that injustice _caused by your sex_ exists every where in the\nworld, and you say that man has judicial sense!\n\nAnd, in the face of the inequality and oppression created by men, of\ntheir love of puerile distinctions, of the base deeds which they commit\nfor a bit of ribbon, you accuse women of loving inequality and\nprivileges!\n\nThey may love them, _like you_, but they are better than you, if not more\njust; they pray for the vanquished, you kill him!\n\nI do not deny that women did much harm to the Revolution of February, for\nthey are as intelligent as men, and have great influence over them. But\nwhat did this Revolution do for them, I pray?\n\nMark me well, you and all those who are blind enough, proud enough,\ndespotic enough to resemble you, and remember what I say.\n\nWoman is like the people: she desires no more of your revolutions, which\ndecimate us for the benefit of a few ambitious babblers.\n\nShe will have liberty and equality for all men and women, or she will\ntake care that no one shall have them.\n\nWe, Women of Progress, openly declare ourselves adversaries of whoever\nshall deny the right of woman to liberty.\n\nOur sisters of the people, indignant at their exclusion from the popular\nassemblies, say to you: you have lured us long enough, it is time that\nthis should end. We will no longer suffer ourselves to be ensnared by\nyour high-sounding words of Justice, Liberty, and Equality, which are\nonly false coin so long as they are applied to but half the human\nspecies. Do you wish to save the perishing world? Call woman to your\nside. If you will not do this, let us alone, insipid phraseologists; you\nare naught but ambitious hypocrites; we do not wish our husbands to\nfollow you, and they will not.\n\n\nIV.\n\nPROUDHON. Let us consider woman in the antithesis. I have said that\nwoman, considered apart from masculine influence, is _nothing_.\n\nAUTHOR. Yes, Master, because this is a pure creation of your thought.\n\nPROUDHON. But woman, considered under the influence of man, is half of\nthe human being, and _I sing litanies in her praise_.\n\nAUTHOR. Then you make woman re-enter humanity through the door of\nAndrogyny, in order to restore to her her share of rights.... This is\nabsurd; no matter.\n\nPROUDHON. Not so! not so! Women have rights! Never, so long as I am\nProudhon! She is indeed the complement of man, who, without her, would be\nonly a brute.\n\nAUTHOR. Ah! my learned Master, how do these things harmonize in your\nbrain? You have said hitherto that _woman owes everything to man_, you\ntell me now that, without woman, man would be only a brute. Is he not\nthen, _adequate to his destiny_, as you have affirmed? And if woman is\nnothing without him, and he nothing without woman, I can see no longer\nupon what you rest in making him the guide of this poor unfortunate.\n\nPROUDHON. I need not explain myself, such is my idea. I am simply\ncomparing the respective qualities of the sexes, and, as I find, they are\n_incommutable_.\n\nAUTHOR. Ah! I catch a glimpse of your meaning; then you do not weigh them\nin the balance since they are not alike, and, being unable to prejudice\nthe rights of woman, you leave her free.\n\nPROUDHON. What! what! Woman free! Horrible! Are you resolved to throw me\ninto convulsions? Woman, however eminent may be her talents, should serve\nman in silence and in all humility.\n\nAUTHOR. Frankly, Master, all this appears to me nonsense, which, satanic\nas you are, you cannot yourself understand in the least.\n\nPROUDHON. Listen without interrupting me further, if you wish to\ncomprehend me.\n\n\"Without feminine grace, _man would not have emerged from the brutality\nof the early ages; he would violate his female, smother his little ones,\nand give chase to his fellows in order to devour them_.\n\n\"_Woman is the conscience of man personified_, the incarnation of his\nyouth, _his reason and his justice, of all within him that is purest,\nmost sacred, most sublime_.--_Justice_, _Vol._ III., etc.\n\n\"The ideality of his being, she becomes to him a _principle of\nanimation_, a gift of strength, of prudence, of justice, of patience, of\ncourage, of sanctity, of hope, of consolation, without which he would be\nincapable of sustaining the burden of life, of preserving his dignity, of\nenduring himself, _of fulfilling his destiny_.\n\n\"It is through her, through the grace of her divine word, that man gives\nlife and reality to his ideas, by bringing them back unceasingly from the\nabstract to the concrete.\n\n\"_The auxiliary on the side of justice_, she is the angel of patience, of\nresignation, of tolerance, the guardian of his faith, the mirror of his\nconscience, the source of his devotion. Vanquished, guilty, it is still\nin the bosom of woman that he finds consolation and pardon.\"\n\nMan has strength, woman beauty. Through her beauty, she should be the\nexpression of Justice, \"and the attraction that draws us to it.... _She\nwill be better than man_.... She will be the motor of all justice, all\nknowledge, all industry, all virtue.\"--_Id._\n\nAlso, \"beauty is the true destination of the sex; it is its natural\ncondition, its state.\"--_Id._\n\nWoman is the soul of everything; \"without her, all beauty fades; nature\nis sad, precious stones lose their luster, all our arts, children of\nlove, become insipid, half of our labor is without value.\n\n\"If, with respect to vigor, man is to woman as 3 to 2, woman, with\nrespect to beauty, is to man as 3 to 2.\n\n\"If, from the body, we pass to the mind and conscience, woman, through\nher beauty, will be revealed with new advantages.\"--_Id._\n\nThe mind of woman is _more intuitive, more concrete, finer than that of\nman_; \"it seems to man, and is in fact, more circumspect, more _prudent_,\nmore reserved, _wiser_, more equable; it was _Minerva_, the protectress\nof Achilles and Ulysses, who appeased the fury of the one, _and shamed\nthe other of his paradoxes and profligacies_; it is the Virgin whom the\nChristian litany calls _the seat of wisdom_.\n\n\"The quality of the feminine mind has the effect of serving the genius of\nman as a radiator, by reflecting his thoughts at an angle which makes\nthem appear more beautiful if they are correct, more absurd if they are\nfalse; consequently, of simplifying our knowledge and condensing it into\nsimple propositions, easy to seize upon as simple facts, and the\nintuitive, aphoristic, imaged comprehension of which, _while giving woman\na share in the philosophy and the speculations of man_, makes their\nmemory clearer to him, their digestion more easy... _There is not a man\namong the most learned, the most inventive, the most profound, who does\nnot feel a sort of refreshment from conversation with women_....\n\n\"Popularizers are generally minds of the feminine type; but man does not\nlike to be subservient to the glory of man, and provident Nature has\nassigned this part to woman.\n\n\"Let her speak, then, _let her write, even, I authorize and invite her to\ndo so_; but let her do it according to the measure of her feminine\nintelligence, since it is on this condition that she can serve us, and\n_please_ us, _otherwise I withdraw the permission_.\n\n\"Man has strength; but that constancy of which he boasts overmuch, he\nderives especially from woman.... Through her he endures, and learns true\nheroism. _Upon occasion, she can set him the example of it_; she will be,\nthen, _more sublime than he_.\n\n\"Woman will render the law kind, and will convert this two-edged sword\ninto an olive branch.... There is no justice without tolerance; now, it\nis in the exercise of tolerance that woman excels; by the sensibility of\nher heart and the delicacy of her impressions, by the tenderness of her\nsoul, by her love, in fine, she will blunt the sharp angles of justice,\ndestroy its asperities, of a divinity of terror make a divinity of peace.\nJustice, the mother of Peace, would be only a cause of disunion to\nhumanity, were it not for this tempering which she receives especially\nfrom woman.\"--_Id._\n\nAnd what chastity does woman possess! With what constancy she awaits her\nbetrothed! What continence she observes during the absence or sickness of\nher husband! Ah! \"woman alone knows how to be modest.... Through this\nmodesty, which is her most precious prerogative, she triumphs over the\ntransports of man, and ravishes his heart.\"--_Id._\n\nAnd what wisdom in her choice of the companion of her life!\n\n\"She desires man to be strong, valiant, ingenious; she turns from him if\nhe is mincing and delicate.\"--_Id._\n\nNow, my unloved, indocile, and very irreverent disciple, let us\nrecapitulate.\n\nWoman, with respect to physical, intellectual and moral beauty, is to man\nas 3 to 2; \"thus it may be said, indeed, that between man and woman there\nexists a certain equivalence, arising from their respective comparison,\nin the two-fold point of view of strength and beauty; if, by labor,\ngenius, and justice, man is to woman as 27 to 8, in her turn, by graces\nof form and mind, by amenity of character and tenderness of heart, she is\nto man as 27 to 8.... But these respective qualities are incommutable,\ncannot be the subject of any contract....\n\n\"Now, as every question of preponderance in the government of human life\nis within the jurisdiction either of the economical order, or of the\nphilosophical or judicial order, it is evident that superiority of\nbeauty, even of that which is intellectual and moral, cannot create a\ncompensation for woman, whose condition is thus made fatally\nsubordinate.\"--_Id._\n\nDo you understand me now?\n\nAUTHOR. I understand that this is pure sophistry, a thing easily\ndemonstrated; that if your _thesis_ is absurd, your _antithesis_, however\ncomplimentary it may be, is quite as much so; that you have piled\ncontradictions upon contradictions, and that it is a sad spectacle to me\nto see so strong and fine an intellect as yours abandon itself to such\npractices.\n\nYou shall judge for yourself whether my reproaches and regrets are well\nfounded.\n\nIn the _Thesis_ you say: man alone is in himself intelligent and just, he\nalone is adequate to his destiny. Woman has no reason for existing;\nwithout man, she _would not emerge from the bestial condition_.\n\nIn the _Antithesis_: without woman, who is the principle of animation of\nman, the motive power of all science, of all art, of all industry, of all\nvirtue--without woman, who renders justice possible, thought\ncomprehensible and applicable, man, far from being in himself just,\nintelligent, a worker, would be but a brute, _who would violate his\nfemale, strangle his little ones, and pursue his fellow men in order to\ndevour them_.\n\nWhat follows from these divergent affirmations? That if woman alone is\ninadequate to her destiny, man alone is inadequate to his, and that the\nadequateness of both is caused by the synthesis of their respective\nqualities.\n\nIt also follows, by your own admission, that man receives as much from\nwoman as she receives from him, since, if he rescues her from the bestial\nstate, she rescues him from the state of brute ferocity.\n\nIt follows, lastly, by your own admission, that there is equivalence\nbetween the respective qualities of the two sexes. Only you pretend that\nthese qualities cannot be measured by each other, and cannot therefore be\nsubject for contract, and that the qualities of man being more important\nto the social state than those of woman, the latter should be\nsubordinated to the former.\n\nTell me, is there commutability between the qualities that distinguish\nmen from each other?\n\nBetween the man of genius and the humble rag-picker?\n\nBetween the philosopher who elevates the human mind and the porter who\ndoes not even know how to read?\n\nBetween the brain that discovers a great natural law and the one that\nreflects on nothing?\n\nTo answer affirmatively is impossible: for we only compare things of the\nsame nature.\n\nNow, if there can be no commutability between individuals so different,\nis there not, according to your system, subject for social contract\nbetween them?\n\nWhy then do you claim that these men should be _equal socially_?\n\nWhy then do you admit that they may associate things in a private\ncontract which cannot be subjected to a common measure?\n\nThere is no need to be learned in philosophy or economy to know _that any\ncontract whatsoever is an admission of personal insufficiency_; that we\nwould not enter into partnership with others if we could dispense with\nthem; and that in general the design of the contracting parties is _to\nestablish commutability where it has not been established by the nature\nof things_.\n\nTo a common work, one brings his idea, another his hands, a third, his\nmoney, a fourth, custom: if each of the parties had had all these\ncombined, no one would have thought of forming a partnership: a happy\ninsufficiency brought them together, and caused them to establish\nequivalence between the shares of capital which could not be subjected to\na common measure.\n\nWere it true, therefore, that the qualities of the sexes differ as you\npretend, then, as through this same difference, they are _equally_\nnecessary to the collective work, they are _essentially_ subject to\ncontract, and _equivalent_.\n\nBut do they differ as you say? You know the answer of _science_ and\n_facts_. We will not return to it. All your distinctions of beauty and\nstrength are only imaginary classifications. We all know that of eighteen\nmillions of Frenchmen, at the present time, we have a few men of genius,\nabsorbed in specialties, a few more men of talent, perhaps not four\nphilosophers, mediocrities in abundance, and an immense host of cyphers.\nIt is mockery, therefore, to establish the right of prepotency of a sex\nfrom qualities which, on the one hand, do not exist in each of its\nmembers, and, on the other, are often found in the highest degree in the\nsex which it is claimed to reduce to subjection.\n\nBesides, did your sex possess the qualities which you ascribe to it, to\nthe exclusion of mine; since, by your admission, there would be neither\ncivilization, nor science, nor art, nor justice, without the qualities\nyou term peculiar to woman; and since, without these qualities, man would\nbe only a brute and an anthropophagus, it thence follows that woman is\n_at least_ the equivalent of man, if not his superior.\n\nLet us now notice a few of your contradictions.\n\n1st _Thesis_. Woman is a sort of mean term between man and the rest of\nthe animal kingdom.\n\n_Antithesis._ No; woman is the idealisation of man, in that which is\npurest and most sublime in him.\n\n2d _Thesis_. Woman is an inert creature, devoid of understanding, that\nhas no reason for existing.\n\n_Antithesis._ No; woman is the animating principle of man; without her,\nhe could not fulfil his destiny; she is the motive power of all justice,\nall science, all industry, all civilization, all virtue.\n\n3d _Thesis_. Woman does not know how to express an opinion in set terms,\nor to assign reasons for it; she has only disconnected ideas, erroneous\nreasonings; she mistakes chimeras for realities, composes nothing but\nmedleys, monsters.\n\n_Antithesis._ No; the intellect of woman is finer than that of man; she\nhas a wiser, more prudent, more reserved mind; she is the foil of\nmasculine ideas. She is Minerva shaming Ulysses for his paradoxes and\nprofligacies; she is the seat of wisdom.\n\n4th _Thesis_. Without the magnetic influence of man, woman would not\nemerge from the bestial state.\n\n_Antithesis._ Without the magnetic influence of woman, man would be but a\nferocious beast.\n\n5th _Thesis_. The woman who philosophises and writes, destroys her\nprogeny; she had better go iron her collars; she is good for nothing but\nto be concubine or courtesan.\n\n_Antithesis._ Woman should participate in the philosophy and speculations\nof man, and popularize them by her writings.\n\n6th _Thesis_. The conversation of woman exhausts, enervates; he who\nwishes to preserve intact the force of his mind and body, will flee her.\n\n_Antithesis._ The conversation of woman refreshes the most eminent men.\n\n7th _Thesis_. Woman has an infirm conscience; she is immoral,\nanti-judicial; she is worth nothing as to moral responsibility until\nforty-five years of age.\n\n_Antithesis._ Woman is the mirror of the conscience of man, the\nincarnation of this conscience; through her alone justice becomes\npossible; she is the guardian of morals; she is superior to man in moral\nbeauty.\n\n8th _Thesis_. Woman is without virtue.\n\n_Antithesis._ Woman excels in tolerance; through her, man learns\nconstancy and true heroism.\n\n9th _Thesis_. Woman is immodest: she takes the initiative in affairs of\nlove.\n\n_Antithesis._ Woman alone knows how to be modest; in principle, there are\nno impure women; woman calms the sensual passions of man.\n\n10th _Thesis_. Woman prefers an ugly, old, and wicked man.\n\nNo; woman prefers a pretty, mincing puppet, a beau.\n\n_Antithesis._ No; woman wishes man strong, valiant, ingenious; she turns\nfrom him when he is but a pretty, mincing puppet, a beau.\n\nI might go on thus to a hundred, and then make a cross to begin another\nhundred. Can it be possible that you trifle in this manner with your\nreaders?\n\nPROUDHON. The contradiction is not in my thought, but only in the terms.\nThe woman of my thesis is she who has not been subjected to masculine\nmagnetism, to which the woman of my antithesis, on the contrary, has been\nsubjected.\n\nAUTHOR. You would have reason to laugh at us, should we take such an\nanswer in earnest. What! have you seen women outside of society, who\nwould have taken men for monkeys?\n\nHave you proved that in this menagerie, they think falsely, they write\nbadly, they are worth nothing as to conscience until forty-five years of\nage?\n\nThat there, in the absence of men, the women take the initiative in\naffairs of love?\n\nThat the conversation of these women exhausts, enervates the men who are\nnot there?\n\nThat these women prefer the old, ugly and wicked men, or the pretty,\nmincing puppets, who are not at their disposal?\n\nIf the woman of your thesis is the one who has not been subjected to\nmasculine influence, why do you take the women whom you attack from among\nthose who have been subjected to it?\n\nYour contradictions, Master, are genuine and fair contradictions. For you\nas for us, there is but one woman: she who lives in the society of man,\nwho has, like him, faults and vices, and who influences him as much as\nshe is influenced by him: the other has never existed except in the brain\nof mystics and of victims of hallucination.\n\nBut we will leave this.\n\nI have been told that you have spoken of love: it would seem to me\nimpossible, did I not know your audacity.\n\nPROUDHON. I have spoken of it, as well as of Marriage.\n\nAUTHOR. Well! let us make a little excursion into these two territories.\nWe will first speak of Love.\n\n\nV.\n\nPROUDHON. Love!... It wearies and annoys me greatly. I have never yet\nbeen able to make my ideas agree on this subject.\n\nI at first defined love: \"the attraction of the two sexes towards each\nother with a view to reproduction,\" adding that this attraction becomes\npurified by the adjunction of the Ideal. I even made a most beautiful\ndiscovery with respect to this, namely: that there is a sexual division\nbecause it is impossible to idealize anything but the objective.--_Vol._\nIII.\n\nAUTHOR. How you run on! Then all of the animal and vegetable species in\nwhich the sexes are separated have an ideal in love? An ideal in the\nbrain of a horse or a mare may pass, since there is a brain; but where\nwill you lodge that of the male and female flower?\n\nPROUDHON. On my honor, I never thought of asking myself that question. We\nwill return, if you please, to the definition of human love. I say, then,\nthat love is an attraction given with a view to reproduction;\nnotwithstanding, I think, also, that to love, properly called, progeny is\nodious.--_Id._\n\nAUTHOR. But this is a contradiction...\n\nPROUDHON. Am I to blame for that! You know, that in my eyes, man and\nwoman form _the organ of justice, the humanitary Androgynus_. Now I\naffirm that love is the moving power of justice, because it is this that\nattracts towards each other the two halves of the couple. It is through\nlove, therefore, that the conscience of man and woman is opened to the\nknowledge of justice, which does not hinder it from being \"the most\npowerful fatality by which nature could have found the secret of\nobscuring reason within us, of afflicting the conscience, and of chaining\nthe free will.\"--_Id._\n\nAUTHOR. The moving power of justice, the sentiment which opens the\nconscience of the sexes to justice, and which forms the judicial organ,\ndisturbs the reason and afflicts the conscience! But this is a\ncontradiction.\n\nPROUDHON. Once more, am I to blame for it? Love, sought for itself,\nrenders man unworthy, and woman vile; and stop! \"love, even when\nsanctioned by justice, I do not like.\"--_Id._\n\nAUTHOR. Have you not said that without the love inspired in man by the\nbeauty of woman, there would be neither art, nor science, nor industry,\nnor justice; that man would be only a brute?\n\nPROUDHON. Ah! I have said much more!... This love, the motor of justice,\nthe father of civilization, is, notwithstanding, _the abolition of\njustice_, which exacts that it should be cast aside as soon as its office\nof motor is performed. The impulse, the movement given, it must be\ndispensed with. In marriage, it should play the smallest part possible;\n\"all amorous conversation, even between betrothed lovers, even between\nhusband and wife, is indecorous, destructive of domestic respect, of the\nlove of labor and the practice of social duty.\" A marriage of pure\ninclination is nearly allied to shame, and \"the father that gives his\nconsent to it is deserving of censure.\"--_Id._\n\nAUTHOR. A father deserving of censure because he unites those who yield\nto the motive power of justice!\n\nPROUDHON. Let young people marry without repugnance, that is right....\nBut \"when a son, a daughter, to satisfy inclination, tramples under foot\nthe wishes of the father, disinheritance is his first right and most\nsacred duty.\"--_Id._\n\nAUTHOR. Thus love, the motor of justice, the cause of civilization, the\nnecessity for reproduction, is at the same time a thing of shame which\nshould be feared and banished from marriage, and that, in certain cases,\ndeserves disinheritance!... May the gods bless your contradictions, and\nposterity pass lightly over them!\n\nPROUDHON. I can say nothing more satisfactory on the subject; but, let us\ntalk of marriage; I am strong indeed on that point.\n\nEvery function supposes an organ; man is the organ of liberty; but\njustice exacts an organ composed of two terms: the couple. It is\nnecessary that the two persons that compose it should be dissimilar and\nunequal, \"because, if they were alike, they would not be completed by\neach other; they would be two beings wholly independent, without\nreciprocal action, incapable, through this cause, to produce justice....\nIn principle, there is no difference between man and woman, except a\nsimple diminution of energy in their faculties.\n\n\"Man is stronger, woman is weaker, that is all.... Man is the power of\nthat of which woman is the ideal, and reciprocally, woman is the ideal of\nthat of which man is the power.\"--_Id._\n\nAndrogyny laid down, I define marriage to be: \"the sacrament of justice,\nthe living mystery of universal harmony; the form given by nature itself\nto the religion of the human race. In a lower sphere, marriage is the act\nby which man and woman, elevating themselves above love and the senses,\ndeclare their wish to be united according to the law, and, as far as in\nthem lies, to pursue the social destiny, by laboring for the Progress of\nJustice.\n\n\"In this family religion, it may be said that the father is the priest,\nthe wife the god, the children the people.... _All are in the hands of\nthe father_, fed by his labor, protected by his sword, subjected to his\ngovernment, _within the jurisdiction of his court_, heirs and continuers\nof his thought.... _Woman remains subordinate to man_, because she is an\nobject of worship, and because there is no common measure between the\nforce and the ideal.... Man will die for her, as he dies for his faith\nand his gods, but he will keep for himself the command and the\nresponsibility.\"--_Id._\n\nIn result, the spouses are equal, since there is community of fortune,\nof honor, of absolute devotion; \"_in principle and practice_ ... this\nequality does not exist, _cannot exist_.... The equality of rights\nsupposing an equilibrium between the advantages with which Nature has\nendowed woman and the more powerful faculties of man, the result would be\nthat woman, instead of being elevated by this equilibrium, would be\ndenaturalized, debased. By the ideality of her being, woman is, so to\nspeak, beyond price.... That she may preserve this inestimable charm,\nwhich is not a positive faculty in her, but a quality, a manner, a state,\nshe must accept the law of marital power: _equality would render her\nodious_, would be the dissolution of marriage, the death of love, _the\ndestruction of the human race_.\n\n\"And the glory of man consists in reigning over this admirable creature,\nin being able to say: she is myself idealized, she is more than I, and,\nnotwithstanding, would be nothing without me.... In spite of this or on\naccount of this, I am and ought to remain the head of the community; if I\nyield the command to her, she becomes debased and we perish.\"--_Id._\n\nMarriage should be monogamous, \"because conscience is common between the\nspouses, and because it cannot, without being dissolved, admit a third\nparticipant.\"--_Id._\n\nIt should be indissoluble, because conscience is immutable, and the\nspouses could not procure an exchange _without being guilty of\nsacrilege_. If they are obliged to separate, \"the deserving one needs\nonly to heal the wounds made in his heart and conscience, the other has\nno longer the right to aspire to marriage, but must be content with\nconcubinage.\"--_Id._\n\nWhat do you think of this theory?\n\nAUTHOR. Hitherto I have refused to believe in the god Proteus; but on\ncontemplating you, Master, I abjure my incredulity.\n\nYou appear to us first under the garb and form of Manou, and we discuss\nhis physiology;\n\nYou appear to us next, successively, in the shape and vestments of Moses,\nSt. Thomas Aquinas, and St. Bonaventure; you are incarnated for a moment\nin Paracelsus;\n\nLastly, you put on the Roman toga, over which you wrap the ungraceful\nrobe of Auguste Comte.\n\nAll this is too old, too unsightly for our age.... Have you really\nnothing better to give us than the resurrection of the Roman law at the\nglorious time when Cincinnatus ate his dish of lentils stark naked?\n\nPROUDHON. What! do you dispute that marriage by _confarreation is not the\nmasterpiece of the human conscience_?\n\nAUTHOR. Do I dispute it? Yes, indeed, and many other things beside. But\ntell me, what meaning do you give to the words _sacrament_ and _mystery_,\nthat sound so hollow and false from your lips?\n\nPROUDHON. Despite all my explanations concerning marriage, there\nnevertheless remains a mystery with respect to it. This is all I can tell\nyou in elucidation. You must comprehend that \"marriage is an institution\n_sui generis_, formed at the same time at the tribunal of human justice\nby contract, and at the spiritual tribunal by sacrament, and which\nperishes as soon as the one or the other of these two elements\ndisappears.\"--_Id._\n\nYou must also comprehend that \"marriage is a function of humanity,\noutside of which love becomes a scourge, the distinction of the sexes has\nno longer any meaning, the perpetuation of the species becomes a real\ninjury to the living, _justice is contrary to nature and the plan of the\ncreation is absurd_.\"--_Id._\n\nAUTHOR. The plan of the creation absurd, and justice contrary to nature\nwithout marriage! What does this mean in plain language?\n\nPROUDHON. What! Is your intellect so feeble that it does not comprehend\nthat, without marriage, there is not, there cannot be justice?\n\nAUTHOR. Then marriage is necessary to all?\n\nPROUDHON. No; but \"all participate in it and receive its influence\nthrough filiation, consanguinity, adoption which, universal in its\nessence, in order to act, has no need of cohabitation.... In the animic\nor spiritual point of view, marriage is to each of us a condition of\nfelicity.... Every adult, healthy in mind and body, whom solitude or\nabstraction has not sequestered from the rest of mankind, loves, and by\nvirtue of this love, contracts marriage in his heart.... Justice, which\nis the end of love, and which can be obtained either by domestic\ninitiation, by civic communion, or, lastly, by mystical love,\" suffices\n\"for happiness in every condition of age and fortune.\"--_Id._\n\nAnd do not confound marriage with any other union, with concubinage, for\nexample, \"which is the mark of a feeble conscience.\" I do not however\ncondemn the concubinary, for \"society is not the work of a day, virtue is\ndifficult to practise, without speaking of those to whom marriage is\n_inaccessible_.\"--_Id._\n\nIn my opinion, it is for the interest of woman, of children, and of\nmorals, that concubinage should be regulated by legislation. Every child\nshould bear the name of the concubinary father, who should provide for\nhis subsistence and for the expenses of his education; \"the forsaken\nconcubine should also have a right to an indemnity, unless she has been\nthe first to enter into another concubinage.\"--_Id._\n\nBut it is not from concubinage, but from marriage that all justice, all\nright proceeds. This is so true, that if you \"take away marriage, the\nmother is left with her tenderness, but without authority, without\nrights: _she can no longer do justice to her son_; there is illegitimacy,\na first step backward, a return to immorality.\"--_Id._\n\nAUTHOR. All that you have just said concerning love, marriage, justice\nand right, contains so many equivocations, errors, sophisms, and so much\npathos, that nothing less than a huge volume would suffice to refute,\nafter first explaining you. We will content ourselves, therefore, with\ndwelling on the principal points.\n\n\nVI.\n\n1. The Androgynus, by definition, is a being combining the two sexes. Now\nmarriage does not make of man and woman _a single being_; each preserves\nhis individuality; your humanitary Androgynus is not therefore worth the\ntrouble of discussion; it is only a fantasy.\n\n2. Every organ supposes a function, it is true, but what _facts_\nauthorize you to say that the married couple is the organ of justice?\nEspecially when you take the trouble to contradict yourself, in admitting\nthat justice is produced outside of marriage; that there is no need of\nbeing married to be just?\n\nThe organ of justice, like all other organs, is in each of us; it is the\nmoral sense which comes into action when the point in question is the\nappreciation of the moral value of an act, or to apply to our own\nconduct the moral science accepted by the reason of the age.\n\n3. According to you, equilibrium is _equality_; _equality is justice_:\nthere is, therefore, a contradiction on your part in exacting of two\nbeings, endowed each with liberty, will and intellect, that they should\nacknowledge themselves _unequal_ to produce _equality_.\n\n4. To affirm, as you have done, that progress is the realization of the\nideal through free will; that, consequently, the ideal is superior to the\nreality, and that man progresses because he suffers himself to be guided\nby it; then to affirm that woman is the ideal of man and that,\nnotwithstanding, she is _less_ and should _obey_, is a double\ncontradiction. If the point from which you start be admitted, logic would\nexact that man should permit himself to be guided by woman. But what is\nthe use of discussing a thing that is devoid of meaning to the intellect?\nIf man, according to you, represents in reality strength, reason,\njustice, woman being the idealization of man, would therefore represent\nthe greatest strength, the loftiest reason, the most sublime justice....\nDo you pretend to say this, you who affirm the contrary?\n\n5. To say that marriage is an institution _sui generis_, a _sacrament_, a\n_mystery_, is to affirm what? And what enlightenment do you fancy that\nyou have given us? Are you fully sure of comprehending yourself better\nthan we comprehend you? I doubt it.\n\n6. Can you demonstrate why, in an association between strong, intelligent\nmen, and weak, narrow-minded men, justice exacts _equality_, respect for\nthe dignity of all, and declares the slave _debased_ who submits; whilst\nin the association of man and woman, _identical in species_ according to\nyou, the woman who is always, according to you, the weak and\nnarrow-minded being, would be _debased_ and would become _odious_ by\nequality?\n\n7. Can you explain also how, in a couple which stands for the producer of\njustice or equality, this equality _would be the death of love and the\ndestruction of the human race_?\n\nGrant that such a farrago of nonsense and contradictions presents as many\nunfathomable _mysteries_ as your marriage.\n\nWe will say nothing of divorce: we leave it to modern reason and\nconscience whether the dissolution of morals and of the family, due in a\ngreat measure to the indissolubility of marriage, does not give cause\nthat it should be granted. What reasons do you give, besides, to support\nyour opinions? An absurdity: that the rupture of marriage is _sacrilege_;\nan affirmation contradicted by facts: that conscience is immutable.\n\n8. Between the bastard and his mother, there is no justice, say you. Your\nconscience is younger by two thousand and some hundred years than the\nmodern conscience. In the work of reproduction, the task to be performed\nwith reference to the new being, is divided between the parents. On the\nwoman, as the more vital, more elastic, and more resisting, devolves the\nmore perilous part of this task. You shall risk your life to form\nhumanity from your own substance, says Nature to her. To the man it\nbelongs to pay his debt to his children by erecting the roof under which\nthey take shelter, by bringing the food which you elaborate or prepare\nfor them. To him it belongs to accomplish his duty towards his sons by\nthe use of his strength, as you accomplish yours by supplying them with\nyour blood and your milk.\n\nYour rights over the child arise, adds conscience, from his incapacity to\ntake care of himself, from the duties which you fulfil towards him, from\nthe obligation under which you are placed to form his reason and\nconscience, and to make him a useful and moral citizen.\n\nWell, what happens most of the time, in cases of illegitimacy? That the\nfather having weakly, cruelly, contrary to all justice, deserted his\ntask, the mother performs double duty towards her children: _she is at\nonce father and mother_.\n\nAnd it is when this mother has a _double_ right that you dare to say that\nshe has _none_! that between her and her son there is no justice! In\ntruth, I should rather live among savages than in a society that thinks\nand _feels_ like you.\n\nA mother has an incontestable right over her child, for she has risked\nher own life to give it birth: the father acquires rights over it only\nwhen ever he fulfils his duty; when he does not fulfil it, he has no\nright; thus says reason. In this question, marriage signifies nothing. If\nI were illegitimate, and my father had basely abandoned me, I should\ndespise and hate him as the executioner of my mother; as a man without\nheart and conscience, a vile egotist; and I should doubly love and\nrespect her who had been at once my mother and my father. Such are the\ndictates of my conscience, my reason, and my heart.\n\n9. What is your marriage, _the first form given by Nature to the religion\nof the human race_, in which woman is an idol who does the cooking and\nmends the stockings of her priest?\n\nWhat is this institution, in which man is reputed to defend his wife and\nchildren with his sword, whom the law defends, even against him?\n\nIn which man is reputed to support by his labor those who often labor\nmore than he, or who bring him a dowry?\n\n_The wife and children are under the jurisdiction of the tribunal of\nman!_ May the gods preserve us from this frightful return to the manners\nand customs of the patriarchs and Romans. Women and children are under\nthe jurisdiction of the social tribunal, and it is safer for them: the\nFrench wife has not at least to fear that her Abraham will sacrifice her\nlittle Isaac, nor that her domestic despot, leaving the child on the\nground, like the ancient Roman, will thus condemn it to death. Society\nhas a heart and generous proctors who, happily, no longer see the family\ntribunal in the same light as Proudhon. It is true that our author is an\nEpimenides, awaking after a sleep of more than two thousand years.\n\nI have finished, Master; have you anything more to say?\n\nPROUDHON. Certainly. I have to speak of the sphere of woman. This sphere\nis \"the care of the household, the education of childhood, the\ninstruction of young girls under the superintendence of the magistrates,\nthe service of public charity. We dare not add the national festivals and\nspectacles, which might be considered as the seed-time of love.\n\n\"Man is the worker, woman the housewife.\n\n\"The household is the full manifestation of woman.\n\n\"For woman, the household is an honorable necessity.\n\n\"As all her literary productions are always reduced to a domestic novel,\nthe whole value of which is to serve, through love and sentiment, to the\npopularization of justice, so her industrial production is brought back\nin conclusion, to the labors of the household; she will never depart from\nthis circle.\"--_Id._\n\nAUTHOR. Pardon my astonishment, Master, that woman, whose mind is\n_irremediably false_, who is _immoral_, who composes nothing but\n_medleys_, _monsters_, who _takes chimeras for realities, who does not\neven know how to write a novel_, knows how, notwithstanding, by your own\nadmission, to write a novel in order to popularize justice through\nsentiment and love. She therefore comprehends, feels, and loves justice?\n\nI remark next, that the cares of the household are _labor_;\n\nThat education is _labor_;\n\nThat the service of public charity is _labor_;\n\nThat the arrangement and superintendence of festivals and spectacles\npresume varied _labors_;\n\nThat to popularize justice through a domestic novel is _labor_;\n\nWhence it follows that woman is a _worker_, that is, a useful producer;\nshe differs from man, therefore, merely in the kind of production; and we\nhave only to ascertain whether the labor of woman is as useful to society\nas that of man. I charge myself, when you like, with establishing this\n_equivalence_ by _facts_.\n\nI remark, in the second place, that the education of childhood, the\ninstruction of young girls, the service of public charity, the\narrangement of festivals and spectacles, the popularization of justice by\nliterature, do not form a part of the labors of the household; and that\nwoman, therefore, is not _merely housewife_.\n\nI remark, thirdly, that our female superintendents, merchants, artists,\naccountants, clerks, and professors, are no more housewives than your\nmale superintendents, merchants, artists, book keepers, clerks, and\nprofessors; that our female cooks and waiting-maids are no more\nhousewives, than your male cooks, bakers, confectioners, and footmen;\nthat, in all these functions, and in many others, women equal men, which\nproves that they are not less fitted than you for employments that do not\npertain to the household, and that you are not less adapted than they to\nthose that do pertain to it. Rude facts thus stifle your affirmations,\nand show us that woman may be _something else than housewife or\ncourtesan_.\n\nLastly, Master, what is the position of all women relatively to all men?\n\nPROUDHON. Inferiority; for the entire feminine sex fills the place with\nregard to the other sex, in certain respects, of the wife with regard to\nthe husband: this proceeds from the sum total of the respective\nfaculties.\n\nAUTHOR. So there is neither liberty nor equality even for the woman who\nhas not a father or husband?\n\nPROUDHON. \"The truly free woman is the woman who is chaste; the chaste\nwoman is she who experiences no amorous emotion for any one, _not even\nfor her husband_.\"--_Vol._ III.\n\nAUTHOR. Such a woman is not chaste: she is a statue. Chastity being a\n_virtue_, supposes the dominion of the reason and the moral sense over an\ninstinct: the chaste woman, therefore, is she who controls a certain\ninstinct, not she who is destitute of it. I add that the woman who yields\nherself to her husband without attraction, plays the part of a\nprostitute. I knew well that you understood nothing either of love or of\nwoman!\n\nShall we, in conclusion, compare your doctrine concerning the right of\nwoman with that which you profess concerning right in general?\n\nPROUDHON. Willingly ... since I cannot do otherwise.\n\nAUTHOR. Do you admit that woman is identical in species with man?\n\nPROUDHON. Yes, only her faculties are less energetic.\n\nAUTHOR. I grant you this for the sake of discussion. Expound your general\ntheory concerning right, I will apply it to woman, and you shall draw the\nconclusion.\n\n\nVII.\n\nPROUDHON. \"The law regulating only human relations, _it is the same for\nall_; so that, to establish exceptions, it will be necessary to prove\nthat the individuals excepted are of superior order, or inferior to the\nhuman species.\"--_Creation of Order in Humanity._\n\nAUTHOR. Now you admit that woman is neither superior nor inferior to the\nhuman species, but is identical in species with man; the law is therefore\nthe same for her as for man.\n\nPROUDHON. I draw the contrary conclusion, _because man is the stronger_.\n\nAUTHOR. A contradiction, Master.\n\nPROUDHON. \"Neither figure, nor birth, nor _the faculties_, nor fortune,\nnor rank, nor profession, nor talent, _nor anything which distinguishes\nindividuals apart_, establishes between them a difference of species: all\nbeing men, and the law only regulating human relations, it is the same\nfor all.\"--_Id._\n\nAUTHOR. Now, woman is in essence identical with man; she differs from him\nonly in manners and qualities which, according to you, by no means make\nher differ in essence; once more, therefore, the law is the same for her\nas for man.\n\nPROUDHON. It is logical; but I conclude the contrary, _because man is the\nstronger_.\n\nAUTHOR. A contradiction, Master.\n\nPROUDHON. \"Social equilibrium is the equalization of the strong and the\nweak. So long as the strong and the weak are not equal, they are\n_strangers_, they cannot form an alliance, they are _enemies_.\"--1st\n_Memoir on Property_.\n\nAUTHOR. Now, according to you, man is the strong and woman the weak of an\nidentical species; social equilibrium ought therefore to _equalize_ them,\nthat they may be neither strangers nor enemies.\n\nPROUDHON. It is logical; but I claim that they should be _made unequal_\nin society and in marriage. Man should have the prepotence, _because he\nis the stronger_.\n\nAUTHOR. A contradiction, Master.\n\nPROUDHON. \"From the identity of reason in all men, and the sentiment of\nrespect which leads them to maintain their mutual dignity at any cost,\nfollows equality before justice.\"--(_Justice_, _Vol._ III, etc.) All are\nborn free: between individual liberties there is no other judge than\nequilibrium, _which is equality_; the identity of essence does not permit\nthe creation of a hierarchy.--_Vol._ II, the whole of the 8th _Study_.\n\nAUTHOR. Now, woman is in essence identical with man. She is born free;\nbetween her and man there is, therefore, no other judge than equality; it\nis not permissible, therefore, to establish a hierarchy between them.\n\nPROUDHON. It is logical. But I conclude, on the contrary, that it is\nnecessary to create a hierarchy between the sexes, and to give the\nprepotence to man, _because he is the stronger_.\n\nAUTHOR. A contradiction, Master.\n\nPROUDHON. \"The dignity of the human soul consists in being unwilling to\nsuffer any one of its powers _to subordinate_ the others, to require all\nto be at the service of the collective whole; this is morality, this is\nvirtue. Whoever speaks of harmony or agreement, in fact, necessarily\nsupposes terms in opposition. Attempt a hierarchy, a prepotence! _you\nthink to create order, you create nothing but absolutism._\"--_Justice_,\n_Vol._ II.\n\nAUTHOR. Woman, according to you, forms with man an organism, that of\njustice. Now, according to you, the two halves of the androgynus have\ndifferent qualities, which are required to harmonize with each other in\nequality under pain of creating absolutism instead of order; the feminine\nfaculty is therefore required to form an equipoise with the masculine\nfaculty.\n\nPROUDHON. It is logical; but I conclude that the dignity of the\nhumanitary androgynus lies in subjugating the feminine faculty and\ncreating despotism, _because man is the stronger_.\n\nAUTHOR. A contradiction, Master.\n\nPROUDHON. \"Justice is the respect spontaneously felt for and\n_reciprocally guarantied_ to human dignity, in _whatever person_ and\nwhatever circumstance it may be found compromised.\"--_Justice_, _Vol._ I.\n\nAUTHOR. Now, woman is a human being, possessing a dignity which should be\nrespected and guarantied by the law of reciprocity; therefore one cannot\nbe wanting in respect to feminine dignity without being wanting in\njustice.\n\nPROUDHON. It is logical; but although woman is a human being, identical\nin species with man, and although I believe that there is no other basis\nof right than equality, I nevertheless affirm that the dignity of woman\nis inferior to that of man, _because he is the stronger_.\n\nAUTHOR. A contradiction, Master.\n\nPROUDHON. \"Right is to each the faculty of exacting from others respect\nfor human dignity in his person,\" duty is \"the obligation of each to\nrespect this dignity in another.\"--_Justice_, _Vol._ I.\n\nAUTHOR. Now, woman being identical in species, man possesses a dignity\n_equal_ to hers; therefore she should be respected in her dignity, that\nis, in her person, her liberty, her property, her affections; this is her\nright as a human being, and man cannot deny it without failing in justice\nand in his duty.\n\nPROUDHON. It is logical. But I claim that woman has not the right which\nmy principles attribute to her; that man alone has rights, _because man\nis the stronger_.\n\nAUTHOR. A contradiction, Master.\n\nPROUDHON. \"Liberty is an _absolute_ right, because it is to man what\nimpenetrability is to matter, a condition _sine qua non_ of\nexistence.\"--1st _Memoir on Property_.\n\nAUTHOR. Now, woman is a human being, she has therefore an _absolute_\nright to liberty, which is her condition _sine qua non_ of existence.\n\nPROUDHON. It is logical. But I conclude, on the contrary, that woman has\nno need of liberty; that this condition _sine qua non_ of existence for\nour species, does not regard one half of the species; that man alone\ncannot exist without liberty, _because he is the stronger_.\n\nAUTHOR. A contradiction, Master.\n\nPROUDHON. \"Equality is an absolute right, _because without equality,\nthere is no society_.\"--_Id._\n\nAUTHOR. Now, woman is a human and social being; she has an absolute\nright, therefore, to this equality, without which she would be but a\nPariah in society.\n\nPROUDHON. It is logical. But I nevertheless conclude from this that woman\nhas no more right to equality than to liberty. That, although of the same\nspecies as man, and consequently amenable to the law of equality,\nnevertheless she is not amenable to it, and should be unequal and in\nsubjection to man, _because he is the stronger_.\n\nAUTHOR. Fie, Master! To contradict yourself thus is disgraceful to your\nreputation. It would be better to maintain that woman has not the same\nrights as man, because she is of a different species.\n\nPROUDHON. Woman is bound to feel that she does not possess a dignity\nequal to that of man; in the association formed between them to produce\njustice, _the notions of right and duty shall be no longer correlative_.\nMan shall have all rights, and shall accept only such duties as it shall\nplease him to recognize.\n\nAUTHOR. Reflect that man, after having denied the dignity and the right\nof woman, will labor to stultify her more and more in the interest of his\ndespotism!\n\nPROUDHON. That does not concern me: the family should be immured: the\nhusband is priest and king therein. If, as in the case with all liberty\noppressed, the woman grows restive, we will tell her _that she does not\nknow herself, that she is incapable of judging and ruling herself_; that\nshe is a cypher; we will outrage her in her moral worth; we will deny her\nintellect and activity: and by dint of intimidating her, we will succeed\nin forcing her to be silent: for man must remain master, _since he is\nthe stronger_!\n\nAUTHOR. Deny and insult us, Master, this does us no harm: the lords of\nthe Middle Age employed this method with their serfs, your sires ... we\nare now indignant at them. Slaveholders employed and still employ this\nmethod with the blacks, and the civilized world is indignant at them,\nslavery is restricted, and is on the way to disappear.\n\nMeanwhile, I point out your contradictions to my readers; your authority\nover minds will be thereby lessened, I hope.\n\nThose who claim, in accordance with the major of the preceding\nsyllogisms, that you found right upon identity of species, an abstraction\nof individual qualities; that you believe right and duty correlative;\nthat you desire equality and liberty, will be quite as nearly right as\nthose who claim, in accordance with the conclusion of the same\nsyllogisms, that you base right upon force, superiority of faculties;\nthat you accept inequality and despotism, deny individual liberty and\nsocial equality, and do not believe in the correlation of right and duty.\n\nIf it is painful to you to have fallen into contradictions so monstrous,\nbelieve that it is not less painful to me to be forced, in the interest\nof my cause, to point them out to the world.\n\nHaving taken in hand the cause of my sex, I was under obligations to\nparry your attacks by turning against yourself your allegations against\nus.\n\nIt was necessary to do this, not by denials and declamations which prove\nnothing, or by affirmations without proofs, according to your method of\nproceeding; but by opposing to you science and facts; by making use only\nof the rational method which you extol without employing it, by charging\nyou often with contradicting yourself when proofs _de facto_ would have\ndemanded too much detail and time.\n\nYou accuse women of _taking chimeras for realities_. I have proved to you\nthat you deserve this reproach, since your theory is in contradiction to\nscience and facts.\n\nYou accuse women of _erecting unreal analogies into principles_.... I\nhave proved that you have done so as well, in deducing from the\n_pretended_ absence of physical germs in woman, the absence of\nintellectual and moral germs.\n\nYou accuse woman of _reasoning wrongly_.... I have brought you face to\nface with your own principles, that you might draw from them\ncontradictory conclusions.\n\nYou accuse woman of creating nothing but _medleys, monsters_.... The\nanatomy of your theory proves that you know how to do so quite as well.\n\nYou accuse woman of lacking intellect, of want of justice, virtue,\nchastity.... I appeal from you to yourself, and you say positively the\ncontrary.\n\nWhere you are fantastic, contradictory, I, _a woman_, appeal to logic.\n\nWhere you are wanting in method, I, _a woman_, employ scientific and\nrational method.\n\nWhere you contradict your own principles, I appeal to these same\nprinciples to judge and condemn you.\n\nWhich of us two is the more reasonable and more rational?\n\nMy modesty suffers, I acknowledge, at the thought that I have played the\npart of _Minerva shaming Ulysses_ _of his paradoxes and his\nprofligacies_. At last, this tiresome part is ended!\n\nI have addressed so many harsh things to you in so firm and resolute a\ntone, that I should be sorry to quit you without a few friendly words\ncoming from my heart. You ought to be fully convinced of my sincerity,\nfor you see that you have to deal with a woman who shrinks from no one;\nwho is never intimidated, however great may be her opponent, or whatever\nname he may bear. You may be my adversary: I shall never be your enemy,\nfor I regard you as an honest man, a vigorous thinker, one of the glories\nof France, one of the great men of our Comt\u00e9, always so dear to the heart\nof her children; lastly, one of the admirations of my youth. You and I\nbelong to the great army that is assaulting the citadel of abuse, and\nendeavoring to mine and sap it; I do not shun this solidarity. Is it so\nnecessary that we should fight? Let us live in peace; I can entreat it of\nyou without stooping, since I do not fear you. Understand one thing that\nI tell you without bitterness: that you are incapable of understanding\nwoman, and that by continuing the struggle, you will inevitably range her\nunder the banner of the anti-revolutionists.\n\nYour pride has set enmity between you and woman, and you have bruised her\nheel: no one would be more sorry than I to see her crush your head.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nCOMTE.\n\n\nWhat thought Auguste Comte, who died in September, 1857.\n\nTo solve this question, it is necessary first to divide the man into two\nparts; not as the wise king Solomon designed to divide the child disputed\nfor by two mothers, but in thought, by making of him two distinct men; a\nphilosopher and a revealer.\n\nM. Comte, who denied and insulted his master, Saint Simon, is only the\npopularizer of his recently edited works: so much for the rational phase.\n\nWhat belongs to him exclusively is a socio-religious organization, which\ncannot be the work of a healthy mind.\n\nWhat belongs to him exclusively, is a heavy, dry, insulting style,\narrogant to the point of being revolting, loaded and overloaded with\nadjectives and adverbs.\n\nWhat belongs to him exclusively, are a few ideas that he has submerged in\nvolumes, containing not less than from seven hundred and fifty to eight\nhundred pages, in small type. I do not advise you to peruse them,\nreaders, unless in your heart and soul you believe yourself deserving of\nmany years of purgatory, which you prefer to expiate on the earth ... I\ndo not know whether I ought to say above or below, since astronomy has\nreversed the positions of the material and spiritual worlds.\n\nThe disciples of Comte are divided into two schools: that of the\nPositivist Philosophers, and that of the Priesthood.\n\nThe first reject the religious organization of Comte, and are in reality\nnothing but the children of modern Philosophy, and very estimable\nadversaries of that nebulous thing which is called Metaphysics. We could\nnot therefore have them in sight in this article; so, let not M. Littr\u00e9\nand his honorable friends frown in reading us: we are about to find fault\nonly with the high priest and his priesthood.\n\nThe doctrine of Comte concerning woman being connected with the whole of\nhis religious system, let us first say a word about this system.\n\n_There is no God; there is no soul_: the object of our adoration should\nbe Humanity, represented by the best of our species....\n\nThere are three social elements: woman, priest, and man.\n\nWoman is the moral providence, the guardian of morals.\n\nHad it not been for the wholly mystical love, I willingly believe, that\nComte had for Madame Clotilde de Vaux, it is probable that woman would\nnot have been the _moral Providence_; thanks to this love, she is nothing\nless than this. We will see that neither is she anything more.\n\nOf a nature superior to that of man (in the opinion of Comte), she is\nnevertheless subject to him, in consequence of a philosophical paradox\nwhich we need not refute here.\n\nThe function of woman is to render man _moral_; a task which she can\nperform well only in private life; all social and sacerdotal functions\nare therefore interdicted her.\n\nShe should be _preserved from labor_, should renounce dowry and\ninheritance; man is charged with maintaining her; daughter, she is\nsupported by her father or her brothers; wife, by her husband; widow, by\nher sons. In default of her natural maintainers, the state, _on the\nrequisition of the priesthood_, provides for her wants.\n\nMarriage is instituted for the perfecting of the married couple, above\nall, for that of the man: the reproduction of the species has so little\nto do with its end, that the progress of science permits us to hope that,\nsome day, woman will be able _alone_ to reproduce humanity, so as to\nrealize and to generalize the hypothesis of the Virgin Mother. Then it\nwill be possible to regulate human production, by entrusting to none but\nthe most deserving women the task of conceiving children and bringing\nthem into the world, especially members of the priesthood.\n\nDivorce is not permitted, and widowhood is eternal for both sexes.\n\nSuch, in brief, is the Comtist doctrine concerning woman, marriage and\nprocreation. As the reader might suspect us of malicious exaggeration, we\nentreat him to read attentively the following pages, emanating from the\npen of the originator of the system.\n\nAccording to him, women have never demanded their emancipation; the men\nwho claim it for them are, after Comte's usual courteous style, nothing\nbut _utopists corrupted by retrogression_. \"All transitional ages,' he\nsays, \"have given rise, like our own, to sophistical aberrations\nconcerning the social condition of woman. But the natural law which\nassigns to the effective sex an existence essentially domestic, has never\nbeen materially altered.... Women were then (in antiquity) too low to\nreject worthily, even by their silence, the doctoral aberrations of their\npretended defenders.... But among the moderns, the happy liberty of the\nwestern women permits them to manifest a decisive repugnance which is\nsufficient, in default of rational ratification, to neutralize these\nwanderings of the mind, _inspired by the intemperance of the heart_.\n\n\"Without discussing unreal retrograde utopias, it is of importance to\nfeel, the better to appreciate real order, that if women should ever\nobtain this temporal equality demanded, without their consent, by their\npretended defenders, their social guaranties would suffer thereby as much\nas their moral character. For they would find themselves thus subjected,\nin the majority of occupations, to an active daily competition which they\ncould not sustain, while at the same time the practical rivalry would\ncorrupt the principal sources of mutual affection. Man should support\nwoman, such is the natural law of our species.\"--_Politique Positive_, t.\nI.\n\n\"It is necessary to consider the just independence of the affective sex\nas founded upon two connected conditions, its universal affranchisement\nfrom labor outside the household, and its free renunciation of all\nwealth....\n\n\"Domestic priestesses of humanity, born to modify by affection the\nnecessary reign of force, they should shun, as radically degrading, all\nparticipation in command.\"--_Id._ t. IV.\n\n\"The moral degradation appears to me still greater when woman enriches\nherself by her own labor. The continued eagerness of gain makes her then\nlose even that spontaneous kindness which preserves the other type in the\nmidst of its dissipations.\n\n\"No worse industrial chiefs can exist than women.\"--_Cat\u00e9._ _Pos._\n\nSo ladies, ye who prefer labor to prostitution, who pass days and nights\nin providing for the wants of your family, it is understood of course\nthat you _are degraded_; a woman ought not to do anything; respect and\nhonor belong to idleness.\n\nYou, Victoria of England, Isabella of Spain,--you command, therefore you\n_are radically degraded_.\n\nM. Comte pretends that masculine superiority is incontestable in all that\nconcerns the properly called \"source of command ... that the intellect of\nman is stronger, more extended than that of woman.\n\n\"A healthy appreciation of the universal order will make the affective\nsex comprehend how important _submission_ is to dignity.\n\n\"The priesthood will make women feel the merit of _submission_, by\ndeveloping this _admirable_ maxim of Aristotle: _the chief strength of\nwoman consists in surmounting the difficulty of obeying_; their education\nwill have prepared them to comprehend that all dominion, far from really\nelevating, necessarily degrades them, by depreciating their chief worth\nso as to expect from strength the ascendancy which is due to love\nalone.\"--_Ibid._\n\nHere are a few pages from the system of Politique Positive, t. IV., which\nare too curious not to interest the reader.\n\n\"The better to characterize feminine independence, I think it best to\nintroduce a bold hypothesis, which human progress perhaps will realize,\nalthough it is my business neither to examine when nor how.\n\n\"If the masculine apparatus contributes to our generation only after a\nsimple excitement, derived from its organic destination, the possibility\nmay be conceived of replacing this stimulant _by another or several\nothers, of which the woman would dispose at will_. The absence of such a\nfaculty among the neighboring species cannot be sufficient to interdict\nit to the most eminent and most modifiable race....\n\n\"If feminine independence can ever reach this limit, in accordance with\nthe sum total of moral, intellectual, and even material progress, the\nsocial function of the affective sex will be found notably improved. Then\nall fluctuation between the animal appreciation which still prevails, and\nthe noble doctrine systematized by positivism, would cease. The most\nessential production (that of our species) would become independent of\nthe caprices of a perturbating instinct, the normal repression of which\nhas hitherto constituted the principal obstacle to human discipline. Such\na privilege would be naturally found transferred, with full\nresponsibility, to the organs best fitted to its use, alone capable of\nguarding themselves from vicious impulses, so as to realize all the\nadvantages that it permits.\"\n\nWhich means in good English, my female readers, that perhaps the time\nwill come when you will create children without the co-operation of these\ngentlemen; that this function will be confided to those among you who\nshall be most worthy of it, and that they will be held responsible for\nthe imperfection of the product.\n\n\"Thenceforth,\" resumes the author, \"the utopia of the Virgin Mother will\nbecome to the purest and most eminent an ideal goal, directly suited to\nsum up human perfection, thus carried even to systematizing procreation,\nwhile ennobling it.... Success depends most of all on the general\ndevelopment of the relations between the soul and the body, its continued\nsearch (that of the problem of fruitful virginity) will worthily\ninstitute the systematic study of vital harmony, by procuring to it at\nonce the noblest aim and the best organs.\"--_Ibid._\n\nTranslated: the study of the relations of the brain with the body will\nlead us to discover the means of procreating children without the\nco-operation of man; this is the noblest aim of this study, as the\nfaculty of being a virgin mother should be the ideal which the purest and\nmost eminent women should seek to attain.\n\n\"Thus,\" continues M. Comte, \"I am led to represent the utopia of the\nVirgin Mother as the synthetic r\u00e9sume of positive religion, all the\nphases of which it combines.\"--_Ibid._\n\nTranslation: To procreate children without the concurrence of man, _sums\nup positive religion, and combines all its phases_.\n\nThis may be very fine, but as to being _rational_ and _positive_--what do\nyou think, readers?\n\n\"The rationality of the problem,\" adds the author, \"is founded upon the\ndetermination of the true office of the masculine apparatus, designed\nespecially to supply to the blood an excitative fluid, capable of\nstrengthening all the vital operations, whether animal or organic. In\ncomparison with this general service, the special use of the fecundative\nstimulus becomes more and more secondary in proportion as the organism is\nelevated. It may thus be conceived that in the noblest species, this\nliquid ceases to be indispensable to the awakening of the germ, which may\nresult artificially from several other, and even from material sources,\nespecially from a better reaction of the nervous upon the vascular\nsystem.\"--_Ibid._\n\nAll this would be possible, I grant, _if_ the fluid of which you speak,\nHigh Priest, had, above all, the general function which you attribute to\nit;\n\n_If_ the reproduction of our species by the co-operation of the two sexes\nwere not a _law_;\n\n_If_ we could preserve a species while destroying its law;\n\n_If_ facts did not contradict the possibility of the hypothesis.\n\nNow, to place an _if_ before a natural law and the phenomena which are\nits expression, is only a gross absurdity: we explain laws, we do not\nreform them without profoundly modifying the being that they govern; we\ndo not destroy without destroying this being: for the individual being is\n_the law in form_.\n\nThe author dwells as follows on the consequences of the absurd\nhypothesis.\n\n\"Thence it may be conceived that civilization not only disposes man\nbetter to appreciate woman, but augments the participation of this sex in\nhuman reproduction, which ought, finally, _to emanate from it alone_.\n\n\"Regarded individually, such a modification ought to improve the cerebral\nand corporal constitution of both sexes, by developing therein continued\nchastity, the importance of which has been felt more and more by\nuniversal instinct, even during irregularities.--p. 277.\n\n\"Considered domestically, this transformation would render the\nconstitution of the human family more in conformity with the general\nspirit of sociocracy, by completing the just emancipation of woman, thus\nmade, even physically, independent of man. The normal ascendancy of the\naffective sex would be no longer contestable with respect to children\n_emanated from it exclusively_.\n\n\"But the principal result would consist in perfecting the fundamental\ninstitution of marriage (the improvement of the married couple without\nsexual motive), the positive theory of which would then become\nunexceptionable. Thus purified, the conjugal tie would experience an\namelioration as marked as when Polygamy was replaced by Monogamy: for we\nshould generalize the utopia of the Middle Age, in which Maternity was\nreconciled with Virginity.\n\n\"Regarded civilly, this institution alone permits the regulation of the\nmost important of productions, which can never become sufficiently\nsusceptible of systematization, so long as it shall be accomplished in\ndelirium and without responsibility.\n\n\"Reserved to its best organs, this function would perfect the human race\nby better determining the transmission of ameliorations due to external\ninfluences, both social and personal.... Systematic procreation coming to\nremain more or less concentrated among the better types, the comparison\nof the two cases would give rise not only to valuable enlightenment, but\nalso to an important institution which would procure to sociocracy the\nprincipal advantage of theocracy. For the development of the new mode\nwould soon cause a non-hereditary caste to spring up, better adapted than\nthe common populace _for the recruital of spiritual and even temporal\nchiefs_, whose authority would then rest on a truly _superior_ origin,\nwhich would not shun investigation.\n\nAll these indications will suffice to show the value of the utopia of the\nVirgin Mother, destined to procure to Positivism a synthetic r\u00e9sume,\nequivalent to that which the institution of the Eucharist furnishes to\nCatholicism.\"--_Ibid._\n\nIt is much to be feared, alas! that the disciples of this great man,\nhowever ardent seekers of _vital harmony_ they may be, will never find\nthe _synthetic r\u00e9sume_ of Positivism, the _equivalent_ of the Eucharist:\nand it will be a great pity: to order children as we order shoes, and\nleave them on the mother's hands when they do not suit, would be very\nconvenient.\n\nAnd what, I ask you, will the future leaders of humanity do, if they can\nonly obtain respect and obedience on the condition of proving that they\nare _sons of virgins_?\n\nBut we will not jest with so grave a personage as the High Priest of\nHumanity: we will only say in passing, that never was atheist seen to\nshow himself more profoundly a Christian through contempt for works of\nthe flesh. Hear what he says on page 286 of the work before cited:\n\n\"Useless to individual conservation, the sexual instinct co-operates only\nin an _accessory and even equivocal_ manner to the propagation of the\nspecies. Philosophers truly freed from superstition should regard it more\nand more as tending above all to disturb the principal design of the\nvivifying fluid. But without waiting for the feminine utopia to be\nrealized, we may determine, _if not the atrophy, at least the inertia of\nthis cerebral superfoetation_, with more facility than is indicated by\nthe insufficient efforts of theologism. While positive education will\nmake the vices of such an instinct everywhere felt, and _will raise up\nthe continued hope of its desuetude_, the whole final system ought\nnaturally to institute a revulsive treatment with respect to it, more\nefficacious than Catholic austerities. For the universal aspiration of\ndomestic existence and of public life will develop the sympathetic\nfaculties to such a degree, that sentiment, intellect, and activity will\nalways concur to stigmatize and repress the most perturbing of selfish\npropensities.\"\n\nDespite all this _aspiration_, and all these stigmas, do not trust to it,\nHigh Priest! Be advised by me, use camphor, and plenty of it; scatter it\neverywhere as a certain Amphitryon scattered nutmeg.\n\nIt is in prevision of the excommunications hurled by you against this\n_vile_, this _useless_ instinct, that Nature has been prodigal of\ncamphor.\n\nUpon the whole, you see, my female readers, that if M. Comte believes us\nweaker than man in body, mind, and character, in return, he believes us\nbetter.\n\nWe are moral providence, guardian angels: he dreams of affranchisement\nfor us through the subversion of a natural law.\n\nBut meanwhile he places us under the yoke of man by exempting us from\nlabor;\n\nHe rivets our chains by persuading us cajolingly to despoil ourselves of\nour property;\n\nHe says to us in the gentlest voice imaginable: never command: it would\ndegrade you;\n\nYour great strength is in obeying him whom _it is your destiny to\ndirect_.\n\nYou will be naught in the temple, naught in the state.\n\nIn the family, you are domestic priestesses, the auxiliaries of the\npriesthood.\n\nThree sacraments out of nine are refused you: that of destiny, because,\nfor you, it is confounded with that of marriage; that of retirement,\nbecause you have no profession; lastly, that of incorporation, because a\nwoman cannot, in herself, merit a personal and public apotheosis.\n\nIf you have been worthy auxiliaries, you shall be interred near those\nwhom you shall have influenced, like their other useful auxiliaries: the\nhorse, the dog, the cow, and the ass; and mention shall be made of you\nwhen honors shall be paid to the member of humanity to whom you shall\nhave belonged.\n\nShall we refute such doctrines? No. Our answer to them finds a fitter\nplace in the article devoted to M. Proudhon, who has drawn largely from\nthe doctrine of M. Comte.\n\nAs to the priests who continue the teachings of their master, it suffices\nto refer them to what I said to M. Comte in the _Revue Philosophique_ of\nDecember, 1855.\n\nThe women of the present time are in general intelligent, because they\nreceive an education superior to that of their mothers. The majority of\nthem devote themselves to an active life either in the arts or the\ntrades; men acknowledge them as their competitors in these, and even\nconfess that they are superior in management. No man, worthy of the name,\nwould dare contest that woman is his equal, and that the day of her civil\nemancipation is close at hand.\n\nWomen, on their side, more independent and more deserving, without having\nlost anything of their grace and gentleness, no longer accept the famous\naxiom: _man should support woman_; still less do they accept the\n_admirable_ maxim of Aristotle, fit for the slaves of the gyneceum. Be\nsure that every _true_ woman will laugh at the raiment of clouds which\nyou pretend to give her, at the incense with which you wish to asphyxiate\nher; for she cares no longer for adoration. She wishes to carry her\nintellect and activity unfettered into spheres suited to her aptitudes;\nshe wishes to aid her brother, man, in clearing up the field of theory,\nthe domain of practice; she claims that every human being is the judge of\nhis own aptitudes; she does not recognize in any man or in any doctrine\nthe right of fixing her place, and of marking out her road. Through the\nlabor of war was the patriciate constituted; through peaceful labor was\nservitude emancipated; _through labor_, also, does woman claim to conquer\nher civil rights.\n\nSuch is what many women are, what they wish to be to-day; see if it is\nnot madness to seek to revive the gyneceum and the atrium for these\nwomen, impregnated with the ideas of the eighteenth century, wrought upon\nby the ideas of '89 and of the modern reformers. To say to such women\nthat they shall have no place in the state, nor in marriage, nor in\nscience, nor in art, nor in the trades, nor even in your subjective\nparadise, is something so monstrous that I cannot conceive, for my part,\nhow aberration could go so far.\n\nYou will no longer find an interlocutress to say: \"that a woman can\nscarcely ever deserve a personal and public apotheosis ... that views\ninvolving the fullest experience and the profoundest reflection are\n_naturally interdicted_ to the sex whose contemplations can scarcely go\nbeyond the circle of private life _with success_ ... that _the moral\ndegradation of woman is_ _still greater when she enriches herself by her\nown labor_ ... that there are no worse industrial chiefs than women....\"\nAnd if any woman behind the times should be so imbecile and immodest as\nto hold such language, all men of any worth whatever would regard her\nonly with disdain.\n\nBut you, who wish to annihilate woman, from what principle do you draw\nsuch a consequence? That she is an affective power, you say ... yes, but,\nas to that, man is such, likewise; and is not woman, as well as he, alike\nintellect and activity? By reason of a purely accidental predominance,\ncan one half of the human species be banished beyond the clouds of\nsentimentality? And ought not all serious discipline to tend to develop,\nnot one phase of the being, but the ponderation, the harmony of all its\nphases? Want of harmony is the source of disorder and deformity. The\nwoman who is solely sentimental commits irreparable errors; the man who\nis solely rational is a species of monster, and the person in whom\nactivity predominates is but a brute. Since you believe in Gall and\nSpurzheim, you know that the encephalon of the two sexes is alike, that\nit is modifiable in both, that all education is founded on this\nmodificability; why has it never occurred to you that if man _en masse_\nis more rational than woman, it is because education, laws and custom\nhave developed in him the anterior lobes of the brain; while in woman,\neducation, laws and custom develop especially the posterior lobes of this\norgan; and why, having established these facts, have you not been led to\nconclude that, since organs are developed only in consequence of the\nexcitants applied to them, it is probable that man and woman, subjected\nto the same cerebral excitants, would be developed in the same manner,\nwith the shades of difference peculiar to each individuality; and that\nfor woman to be developed harmoniously under her three aspects, she must\nmanifest herself socially under three aspects? Be sure, sir, your\nprinciple is thrice false, thrice in contradiction to science and reason;\nin the presence of the physiology of the brain, all theories of\nclassification fall to the ground: before the nervous system, women are\nthe equals of men: they can be their inferiors only before muscular\nsupremacy, attacked by the invention of powder, and about to be reduced\nto dust by the triumph of mechanism.\n\nI should say many more things to you, sir, were not this critical sketch\ntoo long already; but imperfect though it may be, having to my mind only\nthe meaning of a woman's protest against your doctrines, I shall pause\nhere.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nLEGOUV\u00c9.\n\n\nThe inheritor of a name which commands respect, Ernest Legouv\u00e9, an\nelegant, eloquent, and impassioned author, has written a Moral History of\nWomen, whence exhales a perfume of purity and love which refreshes the\nheart and calms the soul.\n\nIn every page of this book, we detect the impulse of an upright heart and\nlofty mind, indignant at injustice, oppression, and moral deformity. The\nauthor has deserved well of women, and it is with pleasure that I seize\nthe opportunity of thanking him in the name of those who, at the present\ntime, are struggling in various countries for the emancipation of half\nthe human race.\n\nWhat is the object of Legouv\u00e9's work? We will let him tell it himself.\n\n\"The object of this book is summed up in these words: to lay claim to\nfeminine liberty in the name of the two very principles of the\nadversaries of this liberty: tradition and difference (of the sexes),\nthat is to say, to show in tradition progress, and in difference\nequality.\n\nGod created the human species double, we utilize but half of it; Nature\nsays two, we say one; we must agree with Nature. Unity itself, instead of\nperishing thereby, would only then be true unity; that is, not the\nsterile absorption of one of two terms for the benefit of the other, but\nthe living fusion of two fraternal individualities, increasing the common\npower with all the force of their individual development.\n\n\"The feminine spirit is stifled, but not dead.... We cannot annihilate at\nour pleasure a force created by God, or extinguish a torch lighted by his\nhand; but turned aside from its purpose, this force, instead of creating,\ndestroys; this torch consumes instead of giving light.\n\n\"Let us then open wide the gates of the world to this new element: we\nhave need of it.\"\n\nThen, examining the position of women, the author adds: \"No history\npresents, we believe, more iniquitous prejudices to combat, more secret\nwounds to heal.\n\n\"Shall we speak of the present? As daughters, no public education for\nthem, no professional instruction, no possible life without marriage, no\nmarriage without a dowry. Wives--they do not legally possess their\nproperty, they do not possess their persons, they cannot give, they\ncannot receive, they are under the ban of an eternal interdict.\nMothers--they have not the legal right to direct the education of their\nchildren, they can neither marry them, nor prevent them from marrying,\nnor banish them from the paternal house nor retain them there. Members of\nthe commonwealth, they can neither be the guardians of other orphans than\ntheir sons or their grand-sons, nor take part in a family council, nor\nwitness a will; they have not the right of testifying in the state to the\nbirth of a child! Among the working people, what class is most wretched?\nWomen. Who are they that earn from sixteen to eighteen sous for twelve\nhours of labor? Women. Upon whom falls all the expense of illegitimate\nchildren? Upon women. Who bear all the disgrace of faults committed\nthrough passion? Women.\"\n\nThen, after showing the position of rich women, he continues: \"And thus,\nslaves everywhere, slaves of want, slaves of wealth, slaves of ignorance,\nthey can only maintain themselves great and pure by force of native\nnobleness and almost superhuman virtue. Can such domination endure?\nEvidently not. It necessarily falls before the principle of natural\nequity; and the moment has come to claim for women their share of rights\nand, above all, of duties; to demonstrate what subjection takes away from\nthem, and what true liberty will restore to them; to show, in short, the\ngood that they do not and the good they might do.\"\n\nThe history of the past shows us woman more and more oppressed in\nproportion as we trace back the course of centuries. \"The French\nRevolution (itself), which renewed the whole order of things in order to\naffranchise men, did nothing, we may say, for the affranchisement of\nwomen.... '91 respected almost all of the feminine disabilities of '88,\nand the Consulate confirmed them in the civil code.\"\n\nThis, in Legouv\u00e9's opinion was the fault of the philosophy of the\neighteenth century, for \"woman is, according to Diderot, a courtesan;\naccording to Montesquieu, an attractive child; according to Rousseau, an\nobject of pleasure to man; according to Voltaire, nothing.... Condorcet\nand Siey\u00e8s demanded even the political emancipation of woman; but their\nprotests were stifled by the powerful voices of the three great\ncontinuers of the eighteenth century, Mirabeau, Danton, and Robespierre.\"\n\n\nUnder the Consulate, \"feminine liberty had no more decided enemy (than\nBonaparte:) a southerner, the spirituality of woman was lost on him; a\nwarrior, he saw in the family a camp, and there required, before all\nelse, discipline; a despot, he saw in it a state, and there required,\nbefore all else, obedience. He it was who concluded a discussion in\ncouncil with these words: _There is one thing that is not French; that a\nwoman can do as she pleases_.... Always man (in the thought of\nBonaparte), always the honor of man! As to the happiness of woman, it is\nnot a single time in question (in the civil code.)\"\n\nIt is in behalf of the weakness of women, it is in behalf of tradition\nwhich shows them constantly subordinate, it is in behalf of their\nhousehold functions, that the adversaries of the emancipation of women\noppose it. \"To educate them is to deform them; and they do not want their\nplaythings spoiled,\" says M. Legouv\u00e9, ironically. He then continues in a\nserious strain: \"What matters tradition to us? What matters history to\nus? There is an authority more powerful than the consent of the human\nrace: _it is the Right_. Though a thousand more centuries of servitude\nshould be added to those which have already passed, their accord could\nnot banish the primordial right which rules over everything, the absolute\nright of perfecting one's self which every being has received from the\nsole fact that he has been created.\"\n\nTo those who base their opposition on the domestic functions of woman, he\nanswers: \"If there (in the household) is their kingdom, then there they\nshould be queens; their own faculties assure them there of authority, and\ntheir adversaries are forced, by their own principles, to emancipate\nthem as daughters, as wives, as mothers. Or, on the contrary, it is\nsought to extend their influence, to give them a r\u00f4le in the state, _and\nwe believe that they should have one_: well; it is also in this\ndissimilarity (between the two sexes), that it is fitting to seek it.\nWhen two beings are of value to each other, it is almost always because\nthey differ from, not because they resemble each other. Far from\ndispossessing men, the mission of women therefore would be to do what men\nleave undone, to aspire to empty places, in short, to represent in the\ncommonwealth the spirit of woman.\"\n\nAs is evident, Legouv\u00e9 demands the civil emancipation of woman in the\nname of the eternal Right, in the name of the happiness of the family, in\nthe name of the commonwealth; their long standing oppression is an\niniquitous fact, and he casts blame on all who have perpetuated it. This\nblame from a man of heart and justice may perhaps have some weight with\nthose women who are so much accustomed to bondage that they do not blush\nat it--that they even no longer feel it!\n\nIn his first book, \"The Daughter,\" which is divided into seven chapters,\nLegouv\u00e9 takes the child from her birth; he shows her made inferior in the\nancient religions and systems of legislation by Menu, by Moses, at Rome,\nat Sparta, at Athens, and under the feudal r\u00e9gime; and he asks why, even\nin our days, the birth of a daughter is received with a sort of disfavor.\nIt is because she will neither continue the name nor the works of her\nfather, says he; it is because her future gives rise to a thousand\nanxieties. \"Life is so rude and so uncertain for a girl! Poor, how many\nchances of misery! Rich, how many chances of moral suffering! If she is\nto have only her labor for a maintenance, how shall we give her an\noccupation that will support her in a state of society in which women\nscarcely earn wherewith not to die? If she has no dowry, how can she\nmarry in this world in which woman, never representing anything but a\npassive being, is forced to buy a husband?... From this _d\u00e9but_, and in\nthis child's cradle, we have found and caught a glimpse of all the chains\nthat await women: insufficiency of education for the rich girl;\ninsufficiency of wages for the poor girl; exclusion from the greater part\nof the professions; subordination in the conjugal abode.\"\n\nIn the second chapter, the author shows by what gradations the daughter,\ndeprived of the right of inheritance, has come in our times to share\nequally with her brothers; then, passing to the right of education, he\nanswers those who pretend that to give a solid education to woman would\nbe to corrupt her and to injure the family: \"The diversity of their\nnature (man and woman) being developed by the identity of their studies,\nit may be said that women would become so much the more fully women in\nproportion as they received a masculine education.\n\n\"Well! it is in the name of the family, in the name of the salvation of\nthe family, in the name of maternity, of marriage, of the household, that\na solid and earnest education must be demanded for girls.... Without\nknowledge, no mother is completely a mother, without knowledge no wife is\ntruly a wife. The question is not, in revealing to the feminine intellect\nthe laws of nature, to make all our girls astronomers or physicians; do\nwe see all men become Latinists by spending ten years of their life in\nthe study of Latin? The question is to strengthen their minds by\nacquaintance with science; and to prepare them to participate in all the\nthoughts of their husbands, all the studies of their children....\nIgnorance leads to a thousand faults, a thousand errors in the wife. The\nhusband who scoffs at science might have been saved by it from dishonor.\"\n\nInsisting upon the rights of woman, the author adds: \"As such (the work\nof God) she has the right to the most complete development of her mind\nand heart. Away then with these vain objections, drawn from the laws of a\nday! It is in the name of eternity that you owe her enlightenment.\"\nFurther on, he exclaims indignantly: \"What! the state maintains a\nuniversity for men, a polytechnic school for men, academies of art and\ntrades for men, agricultural schools for men--and for woman, what has it\nestablished? Primary schools! And even these were not founded by the\nState, but by the Commune. No inequality could be more humiliating. There\nare courts and prisons for women, there should be public education for\nwomen; you have not the right to punish those whom you do not instruct!\"\nM. Legouv\u00e9 demands, in consequence, public education for girls in\nathen\u00e6ums, \"which, by thorough instruction with respect to France, her\nlaws, her annals, and her poetry, shall make her women French women in\ntruth. The country alone can teach love of country.\"\n\nAncient religions and systems of legislation punished misdemeanors and\ncrimes against the purity of women severely (says M. Legouv\u00e9 in his\nfourth chapter). Our code, profoundly immoral, does not punish seduction,\nand punishes corruption only derisively, and violation insufficiently. To\ndeclare void the promise of marriage is fearful immorality; to permit no\ninvestigation of paternity and to admit that of maternity, is as cruel\nas it is immoral. If the solicitude of the legislator for property be\ncompared with his solicitude for purity, we shall soon see how little the\nlaw cares for the latter. \"The law recognizes as criminal only a single\nkind of robbery of honor, _violation_, but it defines, pursues and\npunishes two kinds of robbery of money, _larceny_ and _fraud_; there are\nthieves of coin, there are no sharpers in chastity.\"\n\nWhen a man has seduced a girl fifteen years old under promise of\nmarriage, he has \"a right to come before a magistrate and say: This is my\nsignature, it is true; but I refuse to acknowledge it; a debt of love is\nvoid in law.\"\n\nThe indignant author exclaims, further on: \"Thus, therefore, on every\nside, in practice and in theory, in the world and in the law, for the\nrich as for the poor, we see abandonment of public purity, and a loose\nrein to all ungoverned or depraved desires.... Manufacturers seduce their\nworkwomen, foremen of workshops discharge young girls who will not yield\nto them, masters corrupt their servant maids. Of 5083 lost women,\nenumerated by the grave Parent-Duch\u00e2telet at Paris in 1830, 285 were\nservants, seduced by their masters, and discarded. Clerks, merchants,\nofficers, students deprave poor country girls and bring them to Paris,\nwhere they abandon them, and prostitution gathers them up.... At Rheims,\nat Lille, in all the great centres of industry, are found organized\ncompanies for the recruital of the houses of debauchery of Paris.\"\n\nWith the indignation of an upright man, M. Legouv\u00e9 adds: \"Punish the\nguilty woman if you will, but punish also the man! She is already\npunished; punished by abandonment, punished by dishonor, punished by\nremorse, punished by nine months of suffering, punished by the burden of\nrearing a child: let him then be smitten in turn; or else, it is not\npublic decency that you are protecting, as you say, it is masculine\nsovereignty, in its vilest form: seigniorial right!\n\n\"Impunity assured to men doubles the number of illegitimate children.\nImpunity fosters libertinism; libertinism enervates the race, wastes\nfortunes and blights offspring. Impunity fosters prostitution;\nprostitution destroys the public health, and makes a profession of\nidleness and license. Impunity, in short, surrenders half the human race\nas a prey to the vices of the other half: behold its condemnation in a\nsingle word.\"\n\nIn the fifth chapter, the author finding, with reason, that girls are\nmarried too young, desires that they should not enter upon family duties\nuntil twenty-two years old; works of charity, solid studies, innocent\npleasures, and the ideal of pure love will suffice to keep them pure till\nthis age. \"If the young maiden learns that nothing is more fatal to this\ndivine sentiment (love) than the ephemeral fancies which dare call\nthemselves by its name; if she perceives in it one of those rare\ntreasures which we win only by conquering them, which we keep only by\ndeserving them; if she knows that the heart which would be worthy to\nreceive it must be purified like a sanctuary and enlarged like a temple;\nthen be sure that this sublime ideal, engraven within her, will disgust\nher, by its beauty alone, with the vain images that profane or parody it;\nidols are not worshipped when God is known.\"\n\n\"What is marriage?\" asks M. Legouv\u00e9.\n\n\"The union of two free beings, forming an alliance in order to perfect\nthemselves through love.\" Neither antiquity nor the Middle Age considered\nit in this light. The father, in ancient times, transmitted to the\nhusband his right of property in his daughter in consideration of a\ncertain sum. At Athens, the daughter, even when married, formed part of\nthe paternal inheritance, and was bound to leave her husband to espouse\nthe heir. At Rome, the father, after having given his daughter in\nmarriage, had the power to take her back and to espouse her to another.\nAmong the barbarians, she belonged to him who paid the _mundium_ to her\nfather. Under the feudal system, the law disposed also of the daughter\nwithout her consent. The French Revolution emancipated her in this\nrespect; she is required now to consent to her marriage; but the customs\nof the age take from her the benefit of this emancipation; she is married\ntoo young to know what she is doing, and interest almost always\ndetermines her parents to give her in marriage. For woman to profit by\nher legal emancipation, she should be at least twenty-two years old when\nshe marries; she should make her choice freely; and her relatives should\ncontent themselves with keeping her apart from those whom she ought not\nto choose, and should only enlighten and counsel her; for on the love\nbetween the married couple depends the happiness and virtue of the wife.\n\nExamining next the origin of the dower, the transferral of the dowry, the\nbetrothal and the marriage, he shows the _mundium_ paid at first to the\nfather or the brother; then later, to the maiden, becoming, with the rest\nof the nuptial gifts, the origin of the dower, which he wishes to see\nmade obligatory in modern times. Passing to the dowry, he proves that,\nbecoming by degrees a custom among the Romans, it was at first the\nproperty of the husband; then, as the world progressed, it became the\nproperty of the wife. Our code fully protects the dowry; but the law\nshould oblige wealthy parents to endow their daughters so that they can\nmarry. In olden times, a maiden was betrothed by pledges exchanged by the\nfather and the man who asked her in marriage; at a later date the pledge\nwas given to the maiden instead of the father, and the law intervened to\nrender obligatory promises of marriage. At the present day, in France,\nthere are no longer betrothed, but future spouses.\n\nIn his second book, the author distinguishes the beloved one from the\nmistress, the adoration of pure from that of sensual love; the first\nproduces goodness, patriotism, and respect for woman; the second regards\nher only as an object of pleasure and of disdain. Antiquity had no\nknowledge of pure love; the Middle Age, which comprehended it, was\ndivided equally between it and sensual love; to-day, we have learned to\ncomprehend that the two loves should be united; that the beloved and the\nmistress should make one in the person of the wife.\n\nThe third book, \"The Wife,\" is divided into seven chapters.\n\nThe subordination of woman in marriage, with contempt for the mother,\narose from two erroneous ideas: the inferiority of her nature; her\npassivity in the reproduction of the species, in which she performed the\npart of the earth with respect to the reception of germs. Modern science\nhas destroyed these bases of inferiority by demonstrating: 1st, that the\nhuman germ, before taking its definitive form, passes, in the bosom of\nits mother, through progressive degrees of animal life; 2d, that in all\nspecies, both animal and vegetable, the females are the conservers of the\nrace, which they bring to their own type.\n\nAmong the Romans, two forms of marriage placed the wife, soul, body and\nestate, _in the hands_ of her husband; in a third form, which left her in\nher father's family, she received a dowry, inherited, and administered\nher property. Barbarism and feudality made the wife a ward, the husband\nan administrator, and a step was taken towards the equality of the\nspouses by the institution of _acqu\u00eats_, or property belonging to both,\nthough obtained by but one. To-day, the maiden is married sometimes under\nthe dotal system, occasionally under that of the separation of property,\nand chiefly under that of communion of goods. This last, which is the\nrule, permits the husband to dispose of the property of his partner, to\nsell the household furniture, to take possession of the very jewels of\nhis wife to adorn his mistress. \"Thus, this law respects no dignity, no\ndelicacy, nothing whatever,\" says M. Legouv\u00e9. The omnipotence of the\nhusband is a crime of the law in every point of view; it is in manifest\nviolation of the modern principle, which exacts that all authority shall\nbe limited and placed under surveillance. \"To surrender to the husband\nthe fortune of the wife is to condemn her to an eternal moral minority,\nto create him absolute master of the actions and almost of the soul of\nhis companion.\" The author next addresses himself to those who pretend to\njustify marital omnipotence by the incapacity of woman: \"In vain do facts\nprotest against this alleged incapacity; in vain does reality say: To\nwhom is the prosperity of most of our commercial houses due? To women.\nWho establish, who superintend the thousands of establishments of\nmillinery and objects of taste? Women. By whom are the boarding-schools,\nthe farms, often even, the manufactories, sustained? By women. It matters\nnot, the Code denies to the wife the foresight to preserve, the judgment\nto administer, even the maternal tenderness to economize, and the\nmarriage certificate becomes the expression of this disdainful phrase:\nthe most reasonable woman never attains the good sense of a boy fourteen\nyears of age.\" How shall we set to work to remedy this iniquitous and\nshameful state of affairs? The property of the partners should be divided\ninto three shares: one for the wife, to be placed at her disposal five\nyears after marriage, one for the husband, and a third common to both, to\nbe administered by the husband under the direction of a family council,\nwhich council, in case of incapacity or waste, shall have the right\nprovisionally to take away the management from him, to entrust it to his\nwife.\n\nIf anything is iniquitous and revolting, it is the power of the husband\nover the person and the actions of his wife; the right over her of\ncorrection, still tolerated in our days. There must be a directing power\nin the household; the husband must be the depositary of this power, which\nshould be limited, and controlled by the family council. Legal\nomnipotence demoralizes the husband, who believes in the end in the\nlawfulness of his despotism. It is said that custom establishes precisely\nthe contrary of what the laws prescribe: this is generally true, but it\nis at the expense of the moral character of the wife, thus forced to have\nrecourse to artifice. \"Restore liberty to women, since liberty is truth!\"\nexclaims Legouv\u00e9. \"This will be, at the same time, to affranchise man.\nServitude always creates two slaves: he who holds the chain and he who\nwears it.\"\n\nAntiquity, the Middle Age, and the centuries nearer our own, punished the\nadultery of the wife severely, even cruelly, yet did not admit that a man\ncould become guilty of this offence with respect to his spouse. Our\npresent code acknowledges, indeed, that the husband can commit adultery,\nbut only in case he maintains his mistress under the conjugal roof; the\nwife is an adulteress everywhere, and is punished severely; as to the\nhusband, his punishment is a farce. \"Such impunity,\" says M. Legouv\u00e9, \"is\nnot only injurious to order, it is an insult to public morals, _it is a\nlesson of debauchery, given by the law itself_.\" If, by adultery, the\nwife wounds the heart of an honorable man, introduces false heirs into\nthe family, she at least can abstract nothing from the common fortune;\nwhile the husband, in the same case, can ruin the family, while\nincreasing the number of natural children and provoking his wife to wrong\nby his neglect and brutality. The husband, besides, is more criminal than\nthe wife, for he seeks adultery, while, on the contrary, it comes to the\nwife under a thousand attractive forms. Notwithstanding, the adultery of\nthe woman deserves greater punishment than that of the man.... Ah! M.\nLegouv\u00e9, is this logic?\n\nThe Oriental wife was and is still, a slave, a generatrix; the Roman wife\nwas something more than this; the wife of the Middle Age owed her body to\nher husband, but the Courts of Love had decided that her affections\ncould, nay, should belong to another. To-day, the ideal of marriage is\nenlarged; we comprehend that it is the fusion of two souls, a school for\nmutual perfection, and that the two spouses should belong wholly to each\nother.\n\nWe have been led to this new ideal of the conjugal union by the\ncivilizing struggles of the church against divorce and repudiation. In\nits nature, marriage is indissoluble, but in the existing state of things\nin which the ideal is but very exceptionally realized, the legislator has\ndeemed it right to render possible the separation of the spouses: this\nmeasure is immoral and unfortunate both for the partners and for their\nchildren. The only remedy for family difficulties is _divorce_, a\nquestion with which the church has nothing to do.\n\nThe whole of the last chapter of the third book is a condemnation of\nfickleness in love, and an affirmation of the indissolubility of marriage\nand of the sanctity of the conjugal tie.\n\nThe fourth book, \"The Mother,\" comprises six chapters.\n\nUntil a late day, it was believed that woman was only the soil in which\nman, the creator of the species, deposited the human germ. Modern science\nhas overthrown this false doctrine, and elevated woman by demonstrating\nthese three incontestable facts: 1st, that, dating from the moment of\nconception, the human germ passes through successive degrees of animal\nlife until it acquires its proper form; 2d, that the female sex is the\nconserver of the race, since it always brings them to its own type, as\nwell in the human as in the animal and vegetable species; 3d, that woman\nis physiologically of a nature superior to man, since it is now\ndemonstrated that the higher the respiratory apparatus is placed in the\norganism, the more elevated is the species in the scale of beings; and\nthat woman breathes from the upper, and man from the lower part of the\nlungs.\n\nMaternity does not give to women rights over their children, but\ncontributes, notwithstanding, to their emancipation; thus, in India, a\nwoman who had borne sons could not be repudiated, and at Rome, a woman\nemerged from tutelage at maternity.\n\nIt is iniquitous to give the paternal authority to the father alone; the\nmother should have an equal right with him over her children. Supremacy\nof direction belongs indeed to the father, but this direction should be\nlimited and superintended by a family council, and transferred to the\nmother in case of the unworthiness of her spouse.\n\nThe education of the children belongs of right to the mother, because she\nunderstands them best, and because it is necessary that she should\nacquire that entire influence over her sons which she will need\nafterwards to counsel and to console them. Public education is not fit\nfor boys until they have attained their twelfth year; younger, it is\ninjurious in its results to their character. The author demands that the\nmaternal grand-parents shall not be made inferior in guardianship, as is\nthe case now in the law; and he considers it as sacrilege not to give to\nthe mother an equal right with respect to consent to the marriage of\ntheir children.\n\nLegitimate maternity is happiness to the rich woman; want, often grief,\nto the poor woman. Illegitimate maternity is to women of all ranks a\nsource of sorrow, shame and crime. To the rich girl it is dishonor, an\neternal bar to marriage; to the poor girl it is poverty, shame if she\nkeeps her child; crime, if she destroys it. Yet the law dares grant\nimpunity to the corrupter, to the seducer, to the man who has not\nhesitated to sacrifice to a moment of passion the whole future of a\nwoman, the whole future of a child! The State ought to come to the aid of\nall poor mothers, because it is for its interest that the race should be\nstrong and vigorous, and because mothers are the preservers of the race.\nLet the genius of women be set to work; let infant schools and infant\nasylums be founded in every quarter of France.\n\nThe Hindoo widow was burned; the Jewish widow was bound to re-marry\ncertain men designated by the law; the Grecian and the Gothic widow\npassed under the guardianship of her son, and the latter could not even\nre-marry without his permission; the Christian widow was condemned to\nseclusion; none of these women had any rights over their children. The\nFrench code restores full liberty to the widow, renders to her the right\nof majority, appoints her the guardian and directress of her children; it\nis a preliminary step to liberty in marriage.\n\nThe fifth book, _Woman_, is divided into five chapters.\n\nAll antiquity oppressed woman, although it recognized in her something\nsuperior, and made her a priestess or a prophetess. The Christian woman\nof the early ages, who alone could dethrone the Pagan woman, not only\nendured martyrdom as courageously as man, but was distinguished for her\ngreat charity, for the purity and lucidity of doctrine which rendered her\nthe counsellor of learned men. We do not know, in reality, to what\nheights woman can attain; we cannot judge her by what she is to-day,\nsince she is the work of the eternal oppression of man. \"Who can say\nwhether many of the ills that rend society, and of the insoluble\nproblems that trouble it, may not be caused in part by the annihilation\nof one of the two forces of creation, the ban placed on female genius?\nHave we a right to say to half the human kind: you shall not have your\nshare in life and in the state? Is it not to deny to them (to women)\ntheir title of human beings? Is it not to disinherit the state itself?\nYes, woman should have her place in civil life,\" concludes Legouv\u00e9.\n\nWoman and man are equal, but different. To man, belong synthesis,\nsuperiority in all that demands comprehensive views, genius, muscular\nforce; to woman, belong the spirit of analysis, the comprehension of\ndetails, imagination, tenderness, grace. Man has more strength of reason\nand body, woman more strength of heart, with a marvelous perspicacity to\nwhich man will never attain. The division thus fixed, what ought woman to\ndo?\n\nIn the family, the task of the wife is the management of domestic\naffairs, the education of the children, and the comfort of the husband,\nof whom she should be the inspiration. By the side of the eminent man,\nyet in the shade, there is always a woman; this career of hidden utility\nand of modest devotion is the one best suited to woman. In civil life\nthere are several fields of occupation which they may enter with success:\nart, literature, instruction, _administration_, medicine. \"Modesty itself\ndemands that we should call in women as physicians, not to men, but to\nwomen; for it is an abiding outrage upon all purity that their ignorance\nshould forcibly expose to masculine curiosity the sufferings of their\nsisters.... Nervous diseases, especially, would find in feminine genius\nthe only adversary able to understand and combat them.\" The author says\nthat it is the duty of society to see that poor women do not work for\none-third or one-fourth the wages of men; and that, in manufactures, they\nhave not the most dangerous and least remunerative labors.\n\"Parent-Duch\u00e2telet,\" says he, \"attests that of three thousand lost women,\n_only thirty-five had an occupation that could support them_, and that\nfourteen hundred had been precipitated into this horrible life by\ndestitution. One of them, when she resolved on this course, _had eaten\nnothing for three days_.\" M. Legouv\u00e9 thinks it shameful that men should\nenter into competition with women in the manufacture of articles of dress\nand taste.\n\nIn the fifth and last chapter, the author recognizes the remarkable\ncapacity of women in administration, of which he cites numerous examples.\nHe demands that they should have the superintendence of prisons for\nwomen, hospitals, charitable institutions, the legal guardianship of\nfoundlings, the management, in short, of all that concerns social\ncharity, because they will acquit themselves in it infinitely better than\nmen. But he refuses to them all participation in political acts and in\nall that concerns the government, because they have no aptitude for\nthings of this nature. Finally, he concludes thus: \"Our task is finished;\nwe have examined the principal phases of the life of women, in the\ncharacter of daughters, wives, mothers, and women, comparing the present\nwith the past, and endeavoring to indicate the future; that is, by\npointing out the bad, verifying the better, seeking the best.\n\n\"What principle has served us in this as a guide? Equality in difference.\n\n\"In the name of this principle, what ameliorations have we demanded in\nthe laws and customs?\n\n\"For daughters:\n\n\"Reform in education.\n\n\"Laws against seduction.\n\n\"The postponement of the marriageable age.\n\n\"The actual participation of the betrothed parties in the execution of\ntheir contract.\n\n\"Abolition of the formal request to the father of consent to marriage,\nwhich is an insult to the father and an injustice to the child.\n\n\"For wives:\n\n\"An age of legal majority.\n\n\"Administration, and the right of disposing of a portion of their private\nproperty.\n\n\"The right to appear in law without the consent of their husbands.\n\n\"The limitation of the power of the husband over the person of the wife.\n\n\"The creation of a family council, charged with controlling this part of\nthe power.\n\n\"For mothers:\n\n\"The right of government.\n\n\"The right of direction.\n\n\"The right of education.\n\n\"The right of consent to the marriage of their children.\n\n\"A law requiring the investigation of paternity.\n\n\"The creation of a family council to decide on serious disagreements\nbetween father and mother.\n\n\"For women:\n\n\"Admission to guardianship and the family council.\n\n\"Admission to all professions.\n\n\"Admission within the bounds of their capabilities and duties to public\noffices.\"\n\nIt is evident that Legouv\u00e9 has but one end, that of advancing the\nemancipation of women a single step; he does not demand all that he\nbelieves just, but all that seems to him mature and possible.\n\nWe should thank him for his prudence: he has brought over many men to our\ncause, and has prepared them to hear the voice of woman, speaking loudly\nand firmly by her right as a wife and a human being, as a worker and a\nmember of the social body.\n\nBy the side of Legouv\u00e9, outside the social schools, are a phalanx of just\nand generous men who have written in our favor. We thank them all for\ntheir good words.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nDE GIRARDIN.\n\n\nOn page 42 of his pamphlet, \"Liberty in Marriage,\" De Girardin says, with\ngreat reason: \"Man is born of woman. Everything, therefore, that benefits\nwoman will benefit man.\"\n\n\"To fight and conquer for her is to fight and conquer for himself.\"\n\nInspired by these excellent sentiments, the celebrated publicist has\ninvestigated the causes of the slavery and degradation of woman, and the\nmeans of paralyzing them.\n\n_Every child has for its father the husband of its mother_: this,\naccording to M. de Girardin, is the principle of two great wrongs: the\nservitude of the married woman; the inequality of children before the\nlaw, which classes them as legitimate and illegitimate.\n\nThat children may become equal, that woman may be affranchised from the\nyoke of man, it is necessary, says the author, to substitute the system\nof maternity for that of paternity; to modify Marriage, and to render\nwoman independent through the institution and universalizing of the\ndower.\n\nWe will let M. de Girardin expound the rest of his doctrine himself. \"We\nmust choose,\" says he, \"between these two systems:\n\n\"Between the system of _presumed_ paternity, _which is the system of the\nlaw_, and the system of maternity, _bearing its proof within itself,\nwhich is the system of Nature_; the latter is in conformity with\nincontestable truth, the former is condemned by undisputed statistics.\nThe system of paternity is _inequality of children before the mother and\nbefore the law; it is woman possessed and not possessing_; ... it is no\nlonger the legal slavery of woman, _but is still conjugal\nservitude_.\"--_Liberty in Marriage._\n\n\"Without equality of children before the mother, equality of citizens\nbefore the law _is only an imposture_, for evidently and incontestably,\nthis equality does not exist for 2,800,000 children, who, arbitrarily\nentitled illegitimate, are placed outside of common right in violation of\nnatural law.\"--_Id._\n\nAccording to De Girardin, the logical consequences of the system of\nmaternity would be:\n\nThe abolition of civil marriage;\n\nThe mother's name alone given to the child;\n\nThe inheritance placed solely in the maternal line.\n\n\"Marriage,\" says he, \"is a purely individual act, and, as regards its\ncelebration, a purely religious act.--\n\n\"Marriage is an act of faith, not of law: it is for faith to govern it,\n_not for law to make rules for it_.\n\n\"As soon as the law intervenes, it intervenes _without right_, without\nnecessity, _without utility_.\n\n\"For one abuse that it pretends to avert, it gives rise to innumerable\nothers which are worse, and from which society afterwards suffers\nseriously, without taking into account the cause that produced them.\n\n\"Legal liberty in marriage is durable love in the household;\nindissolubility of marriage is habitual love outside of the\nhousehold.\"--_Id._\n\nWith respect to inheritance and dowry, the author expresses himself thus:\n\n\"To inherit at the death of the mother, because maternity and certitude\nare two equipollent terms, and to receive a support from the father,\nbecause paternity and doubt are two inseparable terms; such is the true\nlaw of Nature.\"--_Id._\n\nIn De Girardin's opinion, woman has the same rights as man to liberty and\nequality; the sexes are equal, not through _similitude_ but _equivalence_\nof faculties and functions; man produces, acquires, woman administers,\neconomizes; it belongs therefore to man to provide for the expenses of\nthe household. It is his duty, on uniting himself to a woman, to settle\non her an inalienable dower that will permit her to perform her maternal\nfunctions properly, and to escape from the vices that frequently result\nfrom want and abandonment.\n\nTo the objection that the wages of the working people are insufficient to\nsatisfy this duty, the generous publicist replies: Well, raise the rate\nof wages by excluding from industrial occupations the women and children\nthat lower it by competition with men. And if this measure be not\nsufficient to balance receipts and expenses, increase the wages, for\n\"there is no consideration weighty enough to make me admit that, in order\nnot to diminish the profits of some men, others shall be eternally\ncondemned to insufficient wages; and that to shelter some women from\nviolation, others shall be necessarily devoted to prostitution.\"--_Id._\n\nIn comparing the lot of the wife under the two systems, De Girardin\nexpresses himself thus:\n\n\"Under the system of paternity, the wife, loaded with the gifts of\nfortune, sinks under the weight of an idleness which most frequently\ninflames and disorders her imagination. She does not know what to do to\nemploy her time. Woman does nothing because man does everything.\n\n\"The wife who has brought no dowry and received no dower, sinks under the\nweight of a toil contrary to nature which obliges her, through economy,\nto separate herself from her child a few days after giving it birth, and\nto put it away from her to nurse, for the consideration of five or six\nfrancs a month; to go to work in one direction while her husband works in\nthe other, and not to rejoin him till evening, when each returns from the\nworkshop which has kept them absent from their household all day: if this\nis what is called the family, _is it indeed worth all the stir that is\nmade about it_?\n\n\"Under the system of maternity, on the contrary, the richer a woman is,\nthe further she is removed from idleness; for not only has she her\nchildren to nurse, to rear, to instruct, and to watch over, but she has\nalso to administer her fortune which will one day be theirs.\n\n\"To preserve this fortune, to increase it still more: here is wherewith\nto occupy her leisure, to calm her imagination, to place her under curb.\nIt is wrong to suppose women not qualified for the management of\nbusiness; they excel in it, however little may have been their practice\nor application.\n\n\"Long enough has man been the personification of war, of slavery, of\nconquest; it is the turn of woman to be the personification of peace, of\nliberty, of civilization.\n\n\"In this new system (_that of maternity_), each of the two has his part:\nto man labor, the genius of enterprise; to woman economy and the spirit\nof foresight.\n\n\"Man speculates, woman administers;\n\n\"Man acquires, woman preserves;\n\n\"Man brings in, woman transmits;\n\n\"The dowry remains the attribute of the father, the inheritance becomes\nthe privilege of the mother;\n\n\"Each of the two thus exercises the function that is _natural_ to him,\nand in conformity with the essence of things.\"--_Id._\n\nA number of women have asked whether De Girardin recognizes political\nright for women. He says nothing about it, either in his work \"Liberty in\nMarriage,\" or in his \"Universal Politics.\" But when a man writes that:\n\n\"Woman, belonging to herself, and being dependent only on her reason, has\nthe same rights as man to liberty and equality.\"\n\nThat \"universal suffrage should be _individual_ and _direct_.\"\n\nThat \"every holder of a general insurance has a right to be a party to\nit.\"\n\nIt is evident that we may deduce, without any great stretch of logic,\nthat, woman being _free and equal to man_,\n\nWoman being comprised in universality,\n\nWoman holding, like man, her policy of insurance, has a right, like man,\nto be elector, to be eligible to office, and to vote _individually and\ndirectly_.\n\nNow, as M. de Girardin is not one of those who recoil from the\nconsequences of their principles, we are led to believe that he admits to\nwoman the exercise of political right for woman.\n\nI have been told that, in 1848, one of those pitiable individuals who\nhave neither intellect enough to be logical, nor justice enough to\ncomprehend the oppressed, was haranguing before M. de Girardin against\nthe claims of certain women to enter political life. \"Why not?\" asked M.\nde Girardin. \"Do you believe that Madame de Girardin would deposit a less\nintelligent vote in the electoral urn than that of her footman?\"\n\nIf this anecdote be true, the opinion of the publicist concerning the\npolitical right of woman is not doubtful.\n\n_La libert\u00e9 dans le mariage_ has raised a tempest of indignation, to a\ngreater or less degree feigned, among the prudes; and for some time it\nrequired courage openly to proclaim one's self the (feminine) champion of\nthe author.\n\nAbolish marriage! cry some, veiling their faces with an air of offended\nmodesty.\n\nMake a speculation of love! exclaim others who, apparently, have\npreserved their holy innocence and baptismal ignorance.\n\nCome, ladies, we might say,--a truce to conventional delicacy and\nsentimentality. Let men suffer themselves to be deceived by our mask,\nnothing is more natural; but what is the use of playing the farce among\nwomen?\n\nM. de Girardin does not really suppress marriage; he changes it in some\nrespects, but leaves it intact in a religious point of view. If his\nsystem should be adopted, therefore, you might be married in the presence\nof the clergymen of your respective faiths, precisely as was done some\nseventy years ago, and you would have no fewer scruples than your\ngrandmothers, who believed themselves then sufficiently married.\n\nOn the other hand, in suppressing civil marriage, the author does not\ninterdict such and such particular stipulations; if therefore you hold in\nany degree to the religion of the Code, it will be lawful for you to\nstipulate in your notarial contract:\n\n1. That you will be submissive to your husbands;\n\n2. That you will permit them to manage your fortune, even contrary to\nyour interests and to those of your children;\n\n3. That without authority from them, you will neither go to law, nor\nundertake anything, nor sell anything, nor receive anything, nor give\nanything away;\n\n4. That, so long as they shall live, you renounce all authority over your\nchildren; that they can, if they please, take them from you, banish you\nfrom them, have them reared by whoever they choose, even by their\nmistress, finally, give them in marriage contrary to your will;\n\n5. That you recognise their right to carry elsewhere their love, their\nattentions, their fortune and your own; provided that this does not\nhappen under your roof;\n\n6. That, lastly, you grant their right, if, abandoned by them, you attach\nyourself to another, to drag you before the bar, to dishonor you, to\nimprison you with thieves and prostitutes; that even in such case you\ndeclare them excusable in killing you.\n\nYes, ladies, you might stipulate all this, for M. de Girardin disputes no\none the rights of lacking dignity and being imbecile; of what then do you\ncomplain?\n\nYou reproach M. de Girardin with wishing to make a speculation of love!\nBe good enough to tell me what you call the greater part of the marriages\nof the present time, in which men have the heartlessness to speculate\neven on death!--in which they ask how much a young girl has, what are her\nexpectations, and _how old are her parents_.\n\nAnswer, women:\n\nIs it true that the great majority of seduced women are incapacitated,\nthrough shame and poverty, from rearing their children?\n\nThat what you call a first fault, drives the greater part of them to make\na traffic of their charms?\n\nThat the great majority of men forget, after satisfying their passion,\nboth the woman whom they have led astray, and the innocent creature that\nowes its life to them?\n\nIs it true that the horrible and cruel selfishness of men and the insane\nconfidence of women produces annually a fearful number of so called\nillegitimate children, the greater part of which people the prisons, the\ngalleys, and the public brothels?\n\nIs it true, lastly, that this same selfishness and this same confidence\nare the cause of thousands of human lives being criminally sacrificed?\n\nAnd if all this shame, all these griefs, all these crimes are true?\n\nIf there are so many women seduced and heartbroken;\n\nIf there are so many children abandoned;\n\nIf there are so many infanticides;\n\nIf the law does not protect the woman deceived and made a mother;\n\nIf this law does not compel the seducer to any reparation;\n\nIf public opinion leaves to the victim all the shame;\n\nWhy do you reproach a man for reminding a young girl that from love may\nproceed maternity?\n\nFor telling her that she ought to provide in advance for the child that\nmay be born, in order that it may not be cast upon public charity, and\nthat she herself may not risk falling into those sinks of impurity that\nare the shame and degradation of our sex?\n\nDo you reproach a man then for taking our part against the selfish and\nanimal passions of his sex, and against the impunity accorded them by the\nlaws?\n\nDo you reproach him for taking in hand the cause of morals and health, in\nopposition to the degradation of soul and body?\n\nA young girl stipulate the sale of her person! say you? what essential\ndifference do you find between this kind of contract, and those that are\nmade to-day before the notary on the occasion of a marriage?\n\nDid not most among you, ladies, purchase your husbands with so much\ndowry, so much income, so much _expectations_? And if these husbands of\nyours did not think it shameful to be sold, and if you do not esteem them\nless for it, be good enough to tell me from what principle you judge it\nshameful for a young girl to do the same in order to rear her children,\nand to live without prostituting herself?\n\nFor my part, I do not see.\n\nLadies, you are grown-up children: men feign to have contempt for the\nwoman who thinks of her interests in love ... because they wish, if\npossible, to keep their money, that is all.\n\nIs this to say that I admit all the ideas of M. de Girardin? No.\n\nI admit with him, that woman can only be free and the equal of man, in\nso far as she is a wife, through a change in marriage.\n\nThat, in the state of insecurity in which she is placed with respect to\nwages and to maternity outside of marriages, woman _does well_ to take\nmeasures to prevent man from shifting the obligations of paternity from\nhimself to her.\n\nI would willingly admit that the child should bear the mother's name\nonly, if men did not object so strongly to it. The child, belonging to\nboth, should bear both names, and choose, at majority, the one that he\npreferred; or else the daughters should bear the name of the mother and\nthe sons that of the father, from the time of majority.\n\nI readily admit the equality of children before the mother and the law;\nfor bastardy is meaningless in nature and is social iniquity. But what I\ndo not admit, is the ideal M. de Girardin has formed with regard to the\nrespective functions of each sex:\n\nThe exclusion of woman from active occupations;\n\nThe universalizing of the dower;\n\nLastly, family education.\n\nTo say that man represents labor, the genius of enterprise, that he\nspeculates, acquires, brings in,--that woman represents economy, the\nspirit of foresight,--that she administers, preserves, transmits, is to\nestablish a series which does not appear to me at all in conformity with\nthe nature of things, since it is notorious that a great number of women\ndo what M. de Girardin attributes to the other sex, and _vice vers\u00e2_.\n\nFunctions, to be properly performed, should be the result of aptitudes.\nNow Nature, except in what concerns the reproduction of the species, does\nnot appear to have classed these according to the sexes. Since the\norigin of society, we have attempted to do it, but history is at hand to\nreveal to us that, in acting thus, we have only succeeded in tyrannizing\nover the sturdy minorities that have given the lie to such pretensions.\nNow, M. de Girardin, admitting a false series, _\u00e0 priori_, is led without\nperceiving it to forge chains for all women whom Nature has not made in\nconformity with the conventional order which he wishes to see realized.\n\nTo exclude woman from active occupations in order to confine her to the\ncares of the household is to attempt an impossibility, to close the way\nto progress, and to replace woman beneath the yoke of man. It is to\nattempt an impossibility, because there are branches of manufactures that\ncan be executed only by women; because many women who would not marry, or\nwho would be left portionless widows without resources, could only remain\npure by devoting themselves to some active employment which,\nnotwithstanding, would be interdicted to them. To see woman in the\nhousehold alone, is to view her from a contracted stand point, which\nretards the advent of her liberty. It is to close the way to progress,\nbecause there are social functions which will never be well performed\nuntil woman shall participate in them, and social questions that will\nnever be resolved until woman shall stand by the side of man to elucidate\nthem. It is to replace woman beneath the yoke of man, because it is in\nhuman nature to rule and domineer over those whom we provide with their\ndaily bread.\n\nTo wish to erect the dower into an institution, is to wish to restore one\nof the most lamentable phases of the Past at the moment when Humanity is\nmarching towards the Future--that which shows us woman purchased by man.\nThe universalizing of the dower would be therefore a criminal attempt on\nthe liberty and moral dignity of woman. Lastly, to claim that every\nmother ought to educate her children herself appears to us to propose as\ngreat impossibility as social danger.\n\nIf every well constituted woman is fit to bring children into the world\nand to nourish them with her milk, very few are capable of developing\ntheir intellect and heart, for education is a special function, requiring\na particular aptitude, with which all mothers cannot be endowed.\n\nNext, family education perpetuates divergence of opinions and sentiments,\nmaintains prejudices, favors the development of vanity and selfishness,\nand tends, by this means, to paralyze the most noble, the most civilizing\nsentiment--that of universal solidarity. Assuredly, at the present time,\nmany motives may justify family education, but for the good of humanity\nit is to be desired that parents who sympathize in progressive ideas\nshould assemble their children together to form them for social life,\ninstead of rearing them each by himself.\n\nI submit this critical sketch to M. de Girardin in the name of the\nprinciple that he has always defended:--_individual dignity and human\nliberty_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nMODERN COMMUNISTS.\n\n\nThe Communists hold as the principle of social organization, not _the\nagrarian law_, as has been charged on them through ignorance or bad\nfaith, but the enjoyment _in common_ of the soil, of implements of labor,\nand of products. _From each one according to his strength, to each one\naccording to his needs_, is the formula of most among them.\n\nIt is not our business to examine the social value of this doctrine, but\nonly to show what Communism thinks of woman and her rights.\n\nThe modern communists may be divided into two classes: the religious and\nthe political.\n\nAmong the first are the Saint Simonians, the Fusionists and the\nPhiladelphians.\n\nAmong the second, are the Equalitarians, the Unitarians, the Icarians,\netc.\n\nThe first consider woman as the equal of man. To the others, she is free;\namong some, with a shade of subordination.\n\nThe Unitarians, who have drawn largely from Fourier, proclaim woman free,\nand equal with man.\n\nWe shall speak here of only a few of the communistic sects, reserving\nfor separate articles what relates to the Saint Simonians and the\nFusionists.\n\nThe Philadelphians, admitting God and the immortality of the soul, lay\ndown these two principles: God is the chief of the social order;\nFraternity is the law that governs human relations.\n\nReligion, to the Philadelphians, is the practice of Fraternity; Progress\nis a dogma, Community is the law of the individual before God and\nconscience.\n\nTouching the relations of the sexes and the rights of woman, M. Pecqueur\nthus expresses himself in his work _La R\u00e9publique de Dieu_, pp. 194, 195:\n\n\"Complete equality of the man and the woman.\"\n\nThe Monogamic marriage, intentionally indissoluble as a normal condition;\nsuch is the second practical consequence of the dogma of religious\nfraternity.\n\n\n1. EQUALITY.\n\n\"We bring no proofs in evidence of this; _his reason is blotted out by\nprejudice and his heart chilled by egotism_, who is not impressed at once\nwith the truth of equality.\n\n\"In the state of society created by the religion of fraternity and\nequality, women will find, from their earliest years, _the same means and\nthe same conditions of development of function and of remuneration_, in\nshort, THE SAME RIGHTS, the same social aim to pursue as men; and in\nproportion as custom shall correspond with the religious and moral ends\nof the union, will the living law deduce the practical consequences of\nall order, contained in the germ in the dogma of the complete equality of\nthe sexes.\n\n\n\"4. MONOGAMY AND INDISSOLUBILITY.\n\n\"To comprehend the lawfulness of the unlimited or indefinite monogamic\nmarriage, it suffices to consider: 1st. the exigencies of our inmost\nnature, that is, the characteristics of love; its instinctive aspiration\nto the union and the fusion of two beings, to duration and to perpetuity;\nthe necessity of possessing each other reciprocally and of having faith\nin this possession _in order to love each other_; in short, instinct,\ndesire; the irresistible and universal affections, and the joys of\npaternity and of the family; 2d. the physiological conditions of\ngeneration, which exact monogamy in order to assure the reproduction and\nthe good and progressive conservation of the species; 3d. social and\nreligious exigencies, which require relations of all kinds to be\npredetermined and regulated, that each one may be secure in his\nexpectation and his possession, and that there may be a possibility of\nsatisfying the fundamental propensities of our natures.... To claim to\nintroduce polygamy, promiscuousness, or union for a term of years into\nsuch surroundings, (the Philadelphian society,) is evidently to decree\nselfishness and mere carnal pleasure, while proclaiming duty and dignity.\nIt is inconceivable that two moral beings, once united by pure love,\nshould ever cease to love each other, to delight in each other, or at\nleast to endure each other, when they are presumed already to be devoted\nand sacrificing without distinction in their love to their brothers and\nsisters.\n\n\"Still less is it conceivable that their brothers and sisters would dream\nof diverting this reciprocal love of two members of the family to their\npersonal advantage; _for this would be infamy_.\"\n\nM. Pecqueur admits, notwithstanding, that in very rare cases, divorce may\nbe granted on account of incompatibility of temper. In such case the\noffending party would be excluded from the republic, and the other would\nbe at liberty to remarry.\n\nAccording to M. Pecqueur, indissolubility of marriage does not relate to\nthe present antagonistic state of society, as he says:\n\n\"Divorce is a great misfortune, not only to the parties concerned, but to\nreligion; notwithstanding, in the kingdom of C\u00e6sar in which pure justice\nis the question, it is the lesser evil, when the individuals are\ndetermined on a separation in fact, and are lusting after other ties.\nThey do evil clandestinely; they are the cause or the occasion of the\ntemptation or the fall of others. Do what they will, the scandal is\nknown; so that neither society, nor the spouses, nor the children, nor\nmorality derive benefit from the consecration of absolute perpetuity.\n\n\"It is not charitable, it is _impious_ to force two beings to remain\ntogether, one of which, to say the least, maltreats, detests, takes\nadvantage of, or domineers over the other. It is equally wrong to grant\nthem a separation from bed and board without at the same time permitting\nthem to yield to chaste affections when they acknowledge these in purity\nand liberty.\"\n\nSo then, to the Philadelphians, expounded by M. Pecqueur, marriage is\nmonogamous, indissoluble by intention; divorce is a sad necessity of the\nexisting state of society, whilst separation is immorality. In short,\nwoman is _free and the equal of man_.\n\nAnother communist sect, that of the Icarians, takes no notice either of\nthe nature or the rights of women. Its chief, M. Cabet, an\nex-attorney-general, was too fully imbued with the doctrines of the Civil\nCode, that inelegant paraphrase of the Apostle Paul, not to be persuaded\nthat woman ought to remain outside the pale of political right, and that\nshe ought to be subordinate to man in general, and to her husband, good\nor bad, in particular.\n\nLet us do justice however to M. Cabet's disciples; I have never found a\nsingle one of them of his opinion on this great question.\n\nOne evening in 1848, as M. Cabet was presiding over a well attended club,\nhe was requested by a woman to put the question: _Is woman the equal of\nman before social and political rights?_ Almost every hand was raised in\nthe affirmative; in the negative, not a hand was raised, not a man\nprotested against the affirmation. A round of applause followed from the\ngalleries filled with women; and M. Cabet was somewhat disconcerted by\nthe result. He seemed to be ignorant that the people, always eminently\nlogical, are never guilty of quibbling to elude or to limit the\nprinciples that they have adopted.\n\nThis vote of the Cabet club was repeated in three others, in my presence.\nThe men in paletots laughed at the demands of brave Jeanne Deroin; the\nmen in blouses did not even smile at them.\n\nM. Dezamy representing another shade of communism, thus expresses himself\nin the code of the Community; \"Away with marital dominion! Freedom of\nalliance! _perfect equality of both sexes!_ Freedom of divorce!\"\n\nHe adds, under the heading; Laws for the union of the sexes, designed to\nprevent all discord and debauchery, page 266:\n\n\"Art. I. Mutual love, inmost sympathy, purity of heart between two\nbeings, form and legalize their union.\n\n\"Art. II. _There should be perfect equality between the two sexes._\n\n\"Art. III. No bond except that of mutual love can link the man and the\nwoman together.\n\n\"Art. IV. Nothing shall prevent lovers who have separated from forming\nnew ties as often as they shall be attracted to another person.\"\n\nThe ethics of M. Dezamy are not to our taste; we prefer those of the\nCommunist, Pecqueur; but we are glad to prove that modern communism,\ndivided on the questions of marriage, the family, and morals in relations\nof the sexes, is unanimous with respect to the liberty of woman and the\nequality of the sexes before the law and society.\n\nIn this, modern communism is greatly superior to that of the ancient\nschool, practised among several nations, and taught by Plato, Morelly,\netc. We recognize a sign of the times in this juster appreciation of\nwoman, with the introduction of the principle of her rights into\ndoctrines which formerly never took them into account.\n\nThe greater part of the Communists belong to the working class; which\nproves that the people most of all feel the great truth, _that the\nliberty of woman is identical with that of the masses_; and it will take\nmore than MM. Proudhon, Comte, Michelet and their adepts, to throw cold\nwater on their feelings and to make them retrace their steps.\n\n\nSAINT SIMONIANS.\n\nMy mother, a zealous Protestant and very austere in morals, disapproved\nof St. Simonianism, and never permitted any one to speak of it in my\npresence except to condemn it; she took great care that not a line of the\nnew doctrine should fall under my eyes.\n\nWhether from a natural spirit of opposition or from instinctive justice,\nI know not, but I by no means shared in the censure that I heard\nexpressed about me; one thing alone resulted from it--curiosity to become\nacquainted with what were called immoral dogmas.\n\nI was in this frame of mind when one day while with my mother in the\nneighborhood of the _Palais du Justice_, I saw a company of men\nadvancing, clad in a graceful costume; they were the Saint Simonians\ngoing in a body to defend their infant church against prosecution at the\nbar. I was greatly moved by the sight; I felt in communion with these\nyouth who were about to bear testimony to their faith; they did not seem\nlike strangers, but as struggling for my own cause or for one that\ndeserved my sympathy, and tears sprang to my eyes. I could have heartily\nembraced those whom I heard defending them, and as heartily have assailed\nthose who claimed that it would be just to condemn them. My mother being\ntoo generous to join with the latter, we departed in silence. I knew,\nwithout having any knowledge of the details, that the church of St. Simon\nhad been dispersed.\n\nIt was not until some years after that, having made the acquaintance of a\nSt. Simonian lady, I was enabled to read the doctrinal writings and to\nform an idea of the aspirations and the dogmas of the school of St.\nSimon. If the nature of this work forbids me their analysis, it cannot\nreproach me for expressing my sympathies for those who have had great and\ngenerous aspirations; for those who, in a critical point of view, have\nrendered real services to the cause of Progress; for those who have\nbrought to light the solution of the two capital problems of our epoch;\n_the emancipation of woman and of the workman_. The St. Simonians have\nbeen enough assailed, enough calumniated to justify a woman who is not a\nSt. Simonian in considering it a duty to render them justice, by\nacknowledging the good which they have done.\n\nYes, you have a right to be proud of your name of St. Simonians, you who\nhave proclaimed the obligation of laboring without respite for the\nphysical, moral and intellectual amelioration of the most numerous and\nthe poorest class;\n\nYou who have proclaimed the _sanctity_ of science, art, manufactures, and\nlabor in every form;\n\nYou who have proclaimed the equality of the sexes in the family, the\nchurch, and the state;\n\nYou who have preached of peace and fraternity to a world given over to\nwars of cannon and competition.\n\nYou who have criticised the ancient dogma, and all the evil institutions\nthat have thence arisen;\n\nYes, I repeat, you have deserved well of Progress, you have deserved well\nof Humanity; and you have a right to bear with pride your great\nscholastic name; for it was noble to desire the emancipation of woman, of\nlabor, and of the laborer; it was generous to consecrate youth and\nfortune to it, as so many among you have done.\n\nThrough your aspirations, you have been the continuers of '89, since you\ndreamed of realizing what was contained in the germ in the Declaration of\nRights: these are your titles of greatness; this is why your name will\nnot perish. But if, through your sentiments, you belonged to the great\nera of '89, the social form in which you claimed to incarnate your\nprinciples, belonged to the Middle Ages; the age therefore has done right\nto leave you behind. Seduced by trinitarian mysticism, deluded by an\nerroneous historical point of view, you claimed to resuscitate hierarchy\nand theocracy in a system of humanity fashioned in conformity with the\nopposing principle; the triumph of individual liberty in social equality.\nThis is the reason that the age could not follow you. No more could women\nfollow you, for they felt that they could only be affranchised through\nlabor and through purity of morals; by ruling over, not imitating\nmasculine passions. They felt that their power of moralization was due as\nmuch to their chastity as to their intellect; they knew that those who\nmake use of the most liberty in love, neither love nor esteem the other\nsex; that, in general, they employ their ascendancy over it to pervert it\nto ruin and afflict their companions, and to dissolve the family and\ncivilization; that, in consequence, they are the most dangerous enemies\nof the emancipation of their sex; for man, sobered of his passion, can\nnever desire to emancipate those by whom he has been deceived, ruined and\ndemoralized.\n\nThe St. Simonian orthodoxy is therefore, in my opinion, greatly mistaken\nwith respect to the ways and means of realization. Shall we impute this\nto it as a crime? No, indeed! social problems are not mathematical\nproblems; there is merit in propounding them; courage and devotion in\npursuing their solution, even when we fail completely to attain it.\n\nWe all know the spirit of the St. Simonians who first brought before the\npublic mind of the age the question of female emancipation; it would be\nungrateful in the women who demand liberty and equality not to recognize\nthe debt of gratitude which they have contracted toward them. It is their\nduty to say to their companions: the seal of St. Simonianism is the\nsafeguard of the liberty of woman; wherever therefore you meet a St.\nSimonian, you may press his hand fraternally; you have in him a defender\nof your right.\n\nLet us sketch the general outline of the St. Simonian doctrine, touching\nwoman and her rights.\n\nAll of the St. Simonians admit that the sexes are equal;\n\nThat the couple forms the social individual;\n\nThat marriage is the sacred bond of generations; the association of a man\nand a woman for the accomplishment of a sacerdotal, scientific, artistic,\nor industrial work;\n\nAll admit divorce, and transition to another union; but some are more\nsevere than others with respect to the conditions of divorce.\n\nThere is a division among them on the question of morals. Olinde\nRodrigues and Bazard do not admit any _liaison_ of love outside of\nmarriage. M. Enfantine, on the contrary, claims the greatest liberty in\nlove.\n\nWe should add that he gives to this opinion a fixed and provisional value\nonly, since he says that the law of the relations of sexes can only be\nestablished in a sure and definitive manner by the concurrence of the\nwoman; and since, on the other hand, he prescribes continence to his\nclosest followers, until the coming of the Woman, of which he regards\nhimself the precursor.\n\nIn addition, to give our readers a more precise idea of the sentiments of\nthe St. Simonians concerning woman, we will cite some passages of their\nwritings.\n\n\"The use of woman by man still exists,\" says M. Enfantin; \"_this it is\nthat constitutes the necessity of our apostleship_. This use, this\nsubalternation _contrary to nature_, with respect to the future, results\non the one hand, in falsehood and fraud; on the other, in violence and\nanimal passions; it is necessary to put an end to these\nvices.\"--(_Religion St. Simonienne_, 1832, p. 5.)\n\n\"Woman, as we have said, _is the equal of man_; She is now a slave; it\nbelongs to her master to affranchise her.\" (_Id._ p. 12.)\n\n\"There will be no definitive law and morality until woman shall have\nspoken.\" (_Id._ p. 18.)\n\n\"In the name of God,\" exclaims M. Enfantin in his _Appel \u00e0 la Femme_, \"in\nthe name of God and of all the sufferings which Humanity, his loved\nchild, endures to-day in her flesh; in the name of the poorest and most\nnumerous class whose daughters are sold to Indolence and whose sons are\ngiven up to War; in the name of all those men and of all those women, who\ncast the glittering veil of falsehood or the filthy rays of debauchery\nover their secret or public prostitution; in the name of St. Simon who\ncame to announce to man and woman _their moral, social and religious\nequality_, I conjure woman to answer me!\" (_Entretien du 7 D\u00e9cembre_,\n1831.)\n\nOn his side, Bazard concludes a pamphlet, published in January, 1832,\nwith these words:\n\n\"And we too have hastened the coming of woman; we too summon her with all\nour might; but it is in the name of the pure love with which she has\nimbued the heart of man, and which man is now ready to give her in\nreturn; it is in the name of the dignity which is promised her in\nmarriage; it is lastly and above all, in the name of the most numerous\nand poorest class, _whose servitudes and humiliations she has hitherto\nshared_, and whom her enchanting voice can alone to-day have power\nfinally to release from the harsh imposition with which it is still\nweighed down by the wrecks of the past.\"\n\nAh! you are to a great extent right, Enfantin and Bazard! So long as\nwoman is not free and the equal of man; so long as she is not everywhere\nat his side, sorrows, disorders, war, the exploitation of the weak, will\nbe the sad lot of humanity.\n\nPierre Leroux, the gentlest, best and most simple man that I know, writes\nin turn in the fourth volume of his _Encyclop\u00e9die Nouvelle_, article\n_Egalit\u00e9_, the following remarkable paragraphs:\n\n\"There are not two different beings, man and woman, there is but a single\nhuman being with two phases, which correspond and are united by love.\n\n\"Man and woman exist to form the couple; they are the two parts of it.\n_Outside of the couple, outside of love and marriage, there is no longer\nany sex_; there are human beings of a common origin and of like\nfaculties. Man at every moment of his life is sensation, sentiment,\nknowledge; so is woman. The definition is therefore the same.\"\n\nAfter having proved, according to his idea, that the type of woman\ndiffers from that of man, he continues:\n\n\"But this type does not separate them from the rest of humanity, and does\nnot make of them a separate race which must be distinguished\nphilosophically from man.... Love being absent, they manifest themselves\nto man as human beings, and are ranked, like man, under the various\ncategories of civil society.\"\n\nAfter having observed that, however different men may be, they are\ntherefore none the less equal, since they all are sensation, sentiment\nand knowledge, Pierre Leroux, applying this principle to the question of\nthe right of woman, adds:\n\n\"From whatever side we look at this question, we are led to proclaim the\nequality of man and woman. For, if we consider woman in the couple, woman\nis the equal of man, since the couple itself is founded on equality,\nsince love is equality in itself, and since where justice, that is,\nequality, does not reign, there love cannot reign, but the contrary of\nlove.\n\n\"And if we consider woman outside of the couple, she is a being like unto\nman, endowed with the same faculties in various degrees; one of those\nvarieties in unity which constitute the world and human society.\"\n\nThe author says that woman should lay claim to equality only as a spouse\nand a human being; that to acknowledge her as free because she has sex,\nis to declare her at liberty not only to use but also to abuse love; and\nthat the abuse of love must not be the appanage and sign of liberty.\n\nHe says that woman has sex only for him whom she loves and by whom she is\nloved; that to all others she can be merely a human being.\n\n\"From this point of view,\" continues he, \"we must say to women: you have\na right to equality by two distinct titles; as human beings and as wives.\nAs wives, you are our equals, for love in itself is equality. As human\nbeings, your cause is that of all, _it is the same as that of the people;\nit is allied to the great revolutionary cause_; that is, to the general\nprogress of the human kind. _You are our equals, not because you are\nwomen but because there are no longer either slaves or serfs._\n\n\"This is the truth that must be spoken to men and women; but it would be\nto pervert this truth and to transform it into error to say to women: You\nare a sex apart, a sex in the possession of love. Emancipate yourselves;\nthat is, use and abuse love. Woman thus transformed into an unchaste\nVenus, loses at once her dignity as a human being and as a woman; that\nis, as a being capable of forming a human couple under the sacred law of\nlove.\"\n\nThe excellent Leroux asks who does not feel, who does not admit at the\npresent day the equality of the sexes?\n\nWho would dare maintain that woman is an inferior being, of whom man is\nthe guide and beacon light?\n\nThat woman is elevated by man, who is elevated only by himself and by\nGod?\n\nWho would dare maintain such absurdities to-day, brave and upright\nLeroux? P. J. Proudhon, the man who called you _Theopompe_ and\n_P\u00e2lissier_--M. Michelet, who claims that woman was created to be the\nmost tiresome doll of her loving husband.\n\nBut to return to yourself.\n\nYou affirm that God is androgynous; that in him coexist the male and\nfemale principles on the footing of equality: that consequently, man and\nwoman are equal in God. I assent to this willingly, although I know\nabsolutely nothing about it. But when you add that woman is deserving of\nquite as much as man, because she has shared in all the agonizing crises\nof the progressive education of the human race;\n\nThat love, which cannot exist without the woman, has led us from the law\nof slavery to that of equality;\n\nThat consequently woman represents half in the work of the ages;\n\nIn this there is no mystery; I join you therefore with all my heart in\nrepeating to men the invitations and the lessons which you give to these\nungrateful and stubborn males:\n\n\"If we are free, it is in part by woman; let her then be made free by us.\n\n\"But is she so? Is she treated by us as an equal?\n\n\"A wife--does she find equality in love and marriage?\n\n\"A human being, does she find equality in the State?\n\n\"This is the question.\n\n\"On the subject of woman, our civil law is a model of absurd\ncontradictions. According to the Roman law, woman lived perpetually under\ntutelage; in this system of legislation, everything was at least in\nperfect harmony; woman was always a minor. We, on our part, declare her\nin a multitude of cases to be free as man. She is no longer under general\nor fictitious tutelage; her age of majority is fixed; she is competent to\ninherit in her own right; she inherits in equal proportion; she controls\nand disposes of her property; more than this, in the system of communion\nof goods between husband and wife, we admit the separation of property.\nBut let the marriage bond itself be in question, in which wealth is no\nlonger at stake, but ourselves and our mothers, ourselves and our\nsisters, ourselves and our daughters; then we are found intractable in\nour laws; we no longer admit equality; we require woman to declare\nherself our inferior and servant, and to swear obedience to us.\n\n\"Truly we cling more to money than to love; we have more consideration\nfor money-bags than for human dignity; for we emancipate women as soon as\nthey become freeholders; but as soon as they become wives the law\ndeclares them our inferiors. Here notwithstanding, that bond is in\nquestion in which the equality of man and woman is most evident; that\nbond in which this equality breaks forth, as it were; that bond in which\nit is so necessary to proclaim that without equality, the bond itself\nexists no longer. Yet, by an absurd contradiction, our civil law chooses\nthis moment to proclaim the inferiority of woman; it condemns her to\nobedience, makes her take a false oath, and takes advantage of love to\nmake it outrage itself.\n\n\"I have no doubt that, to future ages, the characteristic symbol of our\nmoral condition will be that article of our laws which sanctions in set\nterms inequality in love. It will be said of us: they had so little\ncomprehension of justice, that they did not comprehend love which is\njustice in even its holiest type; they had so little comprehension of\nlove, that they did not even admit justice in it; and that in their\nwritten law, their Code, the form of marriage, the only sacrament of\nwhich they yet had any idea, instead of sanctioning equality, sanctions\ninequality; instead of union, disunion; instead of the love that\nequalizes and identifies its objects, some contradictory and monstrous\nrelation, founded at the same time upon identity, and upon inferiority\nand slavery. Yes, like those forms of the law of the Twelve Tables, that\nwe quote now to prove the barbarity of the ancient Romans and their\nignorance of justice, this article of our Code will be some day cited to\ncharacterize our grossness and ignorance, for the absence of an elevated\nnotion of justice is as marked in it as is the absence of an elevated\nnotion of love.\n\n\"Thence follows everything relative to the condition of woman; or rather,\neverything is connected with this point; for will we respect the\nequality of woman as a human being when we are senseless enough to deny\nher this quality as a wife? Is woman to-day, in so far as a human being,\nreally treated as the equal of man? I will not enter upon this broad\nsubject. I confine myself to a single question; what education do women\nreceive? You treat them as you treat the people. To these too you leave\nthe old religion that fits us no longer. They are children kept as long\nas possible in swaddling clothes, as though this were not the true way to\ndeform them, to destroy at once the rectitude of their mind and the\ncandor of their soul. Besides, what does Society do for them? To what new\ncareers does she give them access? Yet, notwithstanding, it is evident to\nevery thinking mind that our arts, our sciences, our manufactures will\nmake as much new progress when women are called to take a part in them,\nas they did a few years ago, when they were opened to the serfs. You\ncomplain of the want and wretchedness that weighs down your systems of\nsociety; _abolish the castes that are still subsisting; abolish the caste\nin which you hold immured the half of the human race_.\"\n\nThese few pages, my readers, give you the compass of the sentiments of\nthe St. Simonians, both orthodox and dissenters, and justify the sympathy\nentertained by women who have attained _majority_ for those who have so\nardently pleaded their cause.\n\n\nFUSIONISTS.\n\nLouis de Tourreil, the revealer of Fusionism, is a man whom it is\nimpossible to behold without sympathy or to hear without pleasure; he is\nkindly, he speaks well, and his ideas are most logically deduced; his\nprinciples once admitted, one is constrained to follow him to the end.\n\nTourreil expresses himself in the _Revue Philosophique_ of May, 1856, on\nthe subject of woman and her rights, as follows:\n\n\"Nature is reduced to three great co-eternal principles or productive\nagents of all things. These principles are:\n\n\"The female or passive principle,\n\n\"The male or active principle,\n\n\"And the mixed or unificative principle, participating in both, which is\ncalled Love.\n\n\"God is therefore Female, Male and Androgynous, in his trinary unity.\n\n\"He is simultaneously from all eternity Mother, Father and Love, instead\nof being, as the theologians say, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; three\nagents of like sex, incapable of producing anything.\n\n\"You will easily conceive, my dear brother, that if the masculine and the\nfeminine sex hold the same rank in the Divine Trinity, they will be also\nfound in the same rank in humanity. The part which the divine woman plays\nin Heaven, the human woman will play on Earth....\n\n\"Were he (_God_) only of the masculine sex, men would say that the\nmasculine sex alone is noble, and that woman is created merely for the\nservice of man, as man is created for that of God. They would even\nquestion whether she had a soul, and would think that they were doing her\na favor in admitting her as something in life.\"\n\nAfter quoting the teachings of the apostle Paul with respect to woman and\nmarriage, the author continues:\n\n\"Behold, my dear brother, the part which Christianity assigns to woman.\nIf this doctrine therefore were followed in every point, and if it ought\nto be replaced by no higher one, woman would find herself condemned in\nperpetuity to a subalternization humiliating to her nature.\n\n\"But Fusionism, which is the doctrine of Salvation for all, does not\npermit any one to be sacrificed; for this reason, woman is the equal of\nman and man the equal of woman, as in God, the eternal Mother is the\nequal of the eternal Father, and the eternal Father is the equal of the\neternal Mother.\"\n\nDe Tourreil believes that the Mother gives form and the Father life, two\nthings equally necessary to constitute the being.\n\n\"Since woman is the equal of man in absolute principle,\" continues he,\n\"and since she is co-eternal with him, there is injustice in\nsubordinating her to man in the relative; and the book of _Genesis_\ncommits a gross error in making her proceed from man:\n\n\"If either of the two could be before the other, it would be the woman,\nfor strictly speaking, we could conceive of the being without the life,\nbut it would be quite impossible to conceive of the life without the\nbeing: The being without the life would be a dead being, but what would\nthe life be without the being? It would be a life without existence,\nnegation, the absence of life, nothingness. Therefore, in logical order,\nwoman is first....\n\n\"Not only ought woman to be the equal of man, as we have seen, but in\nenunciation and classification, she should be named and classed first.\n\n\"Woman is the mould by which the species is perfected or depraved,\naccording as the mould is good or bad. The fate of humanity depends\ntherefore on woman, since she has all powerful influence on the fruit\nthat she bears in her bosom.\n\n\"Pure, good, intelligent, she will produce healthy, intelligent and good\nbeings.\n\n\"Impure, narrow, and wicked, she will produce unhealthy, unintelligent\nand wicked beings.\n\n\"In a word, the child will be what its mother is, for nothing can give\nwhat it has not.\n\n\"It is important therefore that woman should be developed like man, that\nher education should be comprehensive, that her person should be honored,\nrespected, and tenderly cared for, in order that nothing in the social\nsurroundings may shape it to evil.\n\n\"Destined by the Supreme Being to form the human being from her flesh,\nher blood and her soul, destined to nourish it with her milk and to give\nit its earliest education, the two acts which have the greatest influence\nover the individual life, woman should be considered as the chief agent\nof perfection. This _r\u00f4le_ classes her naturally in a very elevated rank\nin society, and exacts of her superior perfections.\n\n\"Thus in the future she will be the image of Divine Wisdom on earth, as\nman will represent Divine Power.\n\n\"To man more especially will belong action; to woman, counsel.\n\n\"Man will take the initiative in difficult enterprises; woman will\nmoderate or excite ardor therein.\n\n\"Man will rule the planet; woman will embellish it.\n\n\"Man will symbolize science and manufactures; woman will symbolize poetry\nand art.\n\n\"The one will always have need of the other; they will walk together\nside by side, and will find completeness reciprocally in each other.\n\n\"Such, my dear friend, after a brief fashion, is the idea which should be\nformed of woman. Man and woman are not two beings radically separated;\nboth together make but a single being. To subordinate woman to man or man\nto woman is therefore to mutilate the human being, or to fail to\ncomprehend its interests. That humanity may be happy, neither of its\nhalves must suffer. And how can it help suffering if it is reduced to\nservitude and oppressed by the other?\n\n\"Our destiny on earth is to constitute the collective being in his own\nconsciousness. For this, it is necessary to realize the humanitary\nandrogynus. Now the humanitary androgynus necessitates first the\nindividual androgynus which can only be constituted by harmonious\nmarriage.\n\n\"Marriage is therefore the great formative or deformative law of the\ncollective being, according as it is expressed by the legislator in a\nmanner conformably or contrary to human destiny.\n\n\"It is in marriage that the sources of good and evil are found; would you\nknow why?\n\n\"Because in the act that joins the man to the woman, and by which the\ncouple are made to form but one body, the two souls are fused by means of\na reciprocal donation, which unites the souls of the two for eternity.\n\n\"So that, after the conjunction, the soul of the woman adheres to the\nsoul of the man and accompanies it everywhere, while the soul of the man\nadheres to the woman and never more quits it.\n\n\"Whence it follows that if the soul of the man be depraved, it depraves\nthe woman to whom it is united, by exercising over her a continued\naction, even at a distance. So also does the depravity of the woman\nunited to the man deprave him without his knowing it by an occult and\npermanent action.\n\n\"The souls of two depraved beings may be therefore inseparably conjoined,\nwithout thus constituting the individual androgynus, which is the divine\nend of marriage or the union of the sexes.\n\n\"The individual androgynus is only possible to the condition of unity.\nBut unity cannot be constituted by evil.\n\n\"The good, the true and the perfect alone can combine the conditions of\nunity. The evil, the false and the imperfect are essentially inharmonious\nin their nature.\n\n\"Two wicked, insincere and vicious beings will only produce by their\nconjunction a still greater difference. They will be united, but only\nreciprocally to torment each other. Unity will never be constituted by\nthem; and without the constitution of unity or the individual androgynus,\nit will be impossible to realize the human destiny.\n\n\"In order that the individual androgynus may exist in the couple, there\nmust be perfect spiritual communion between them; that is, communion of\nthought, of feeling, and of will. But how can two individuals who,\ninstead of being ruled by truth, are ruled only by their misdirected\npassions,--how can these two make but one? It is impossible.\n\n\"You will comprehend, my dear brother, from these few words, how sacred\nis marriage, and how important it is to contract none but harmonious\nunions, for the unhappiness of a lifetime often depends on an\ninconsiderate conjunction.\"\n\nHaving had several opportunities of meeting M. de Tourreil, I asked him\nfor some exact details in respect to the liberty of woman and marriage.\n\nThe following is an abstract of those that he has kindly given me;\n\nEducation should be the same for both sexes;\n\nWoman should be at liberty to follow the vocation which comes to her from\nGod; and of which she alone is judge;\n\n\"In all grades and employments in the republic of God, woman should be at\nthe side of man;\n\nAfter the age of fifty, all individuals of both sexes should be rulers\nand priests;\n\nThe reproduction of the species being the work of the love of persons\nhealthy in mind and in body, before marriage, the bride should be\nrequired to make confession to a priestess and the bridegroom to a\npriest, in order to be enlightened with respect to the opportuneness or\nunsuitableness of the union.\n\nDissolution of marriage should take place but in a single case,--when the\nhusband and wife have attained to complete fusion; that is, to feeling\nand knowing reciprocally that they have no longer anything to exchange.\nIt then becomes necessary to form new ties, and, each one to labor to\nfuse with a new consort. In the existing condition of humanity, this\nfusion cannot take place; but in the future, when we shall be nearer\nperfection, it will become possible several times in life.\n\nFusionism is, as is evident, mystical socialism.\n\nIts votaries are gentle and good, and very tolerant towards those who do\nnot think like them.\n\n\nPHALANSTERIANS.\n\nThe motto of the Fourieristic, Societary or Phalansterian school is\n_respect for individual liberty_, based on the following notions:\n\nAll nature is good; it becomes perverted only when performing its\nfunctions in evil surroundings.\n\nNo person exactly resembling the rest, each one should be the sole judge\nof his capacities, and should receive laws only from himself.\n\nAttractions are proportional to destinies.\n\nIf the disciples of my compatriot, Charles Fourier, do not express\nthemselves exactly in this wise, all that have written bears the imprint\nof these thoughts.\n\nAre Fourier and his disciples right in believing that the law of\npassional attraction _alone_ is required to organize the industrial,\nmoral and social world?\n\nThat the primordial element of a system of society should be the\nSocietary or Phalansterian association?\n\nThat the most opposite, the most diverse passions are the conditions\n_sine qu\u00e2 non_ of harmony?\n\nThat the compensation of labor and of competition should be regulated\naccording to Labor, Capital and Talent?\n\nWe are not called on to examine this here.\n\nThe only thing that need occupy us in this rapid review of\ncontemporaneous opinions is the investigation of the sentiments and ideas\nof Fourier and his school in that which concerns the principal object of\nthis book. A few pages from the chief of the order, and a summary\nanalysis will suffice for this.\n\nIn the _Th\u00e9orie des quatre Mouvements_, M. Fourier writes;\n\n\"That the ancient philosophers of Greece and Rome should have disdained\nthe interests of women is by no means surprising, since these\nrhetoricians were all ultra partisans of the pederasty which they had\nbrought in high honor in _la belle antiquit\u00e9_. They cast ridicule upon\nthe associating with women; this passion was considered dishonorable....\nThese manners obtained the unanimous suffrage of the philosophers who,\nfrom the virtuous Socrates to the delicate Anacreon, affected Sodomitish\nlove alone and contempt for women, who were banished to the upper\napartments, immured as in a seraglio, and exiled from the society of men.\n\n\"These fantastic tastes not having found favor among the moderns, there\nis reason for surprise that our philosophers should have inherited the\nhatred that the ancient scholars bore to women, and that they should\ncontinue to disparage the sex on account of a few wiles to which woman is\nforced by the oppression which weighs upon her; for every word or thought\nin conformity with the voice of nature is made in her a crime.\n\n\"What can be more inconsistent than the opinion of Diderot, who pretends\nthat, to write to woman, one has only to dip his pen in the rainbow, and\nsprinkle the writing with dust from butterflies' wings? Women might reply\nto the philosopher: Your civilization persecutes us as soon as we obey\nnature; we are obliged to assume a fictitious character and to listen to\nimpulses contrary to our desires. To give us a relish for this doctrine,\nyou are forced to bring in play deceitful illusions and language, as you\ndo with respect to the soldier whom you cradle in laurels and immortality\nto divert his thoughts from his wretched condition. If he were truly\nhappy, he would welcome the plain and truthful language which you take\ncare not to address to him. It is the same with women; if they were free\nand happy, they would be less eager for illusions and cajoleries, and it\nwould no longer be necessary in writing to them to place rainbows and\nbutterflies' wings under contribution.\n\n\"When it (Philosophy) rails at the vices of women, it criticises itself;\nthis it is that produces these vices by a social system which, repressing\ntheir faculties from their infancy and through the whole course of their\nlife, forces them to have recourse to fraud in order to yield to nature.\n\n\"To attempt to judge of women by the vicious character which they display\nin civilization is like attempting to judge of human nature by the\ncharacter of the Russian peasant, who is destitute of all ideas of honor\nand liberty; or like judging the beaver by the stupidity which they show\nwhen domesticated, whilst in a condition of liberty combined with labor,\nthey become the most intelligent of all quadrupeds. The same contrast\nwill reign between the women who are slaves of civilization and those who\nare free in the combined order; they will surpass men in industrial\ndevotion, in loyalty, in nobleness; but outside of the free and combined\nstate, woman, like the domesticated beaver or the Russian peasant,\nbecomes a being so inferior to her destiny and talents that we are\ninclined to despise her when judging her superficially according to\nappearances.\n\n\"It is a surprising thing that women should have always shown themselves\nsuperior to men when they have had it in their power to display on the\nthrone their natural talents, of which the diadem assured them a free\nuse. Is it not certain that of eight queens, independent and unmarried,\nseven will be found to have reigned with glory, while of eight kings, we\ncount habitually seven feeble sovereigns.\n\n... The Elizabeths and Catherines did not make war in person, but they\nknew how to choose their generals; and it is enough that these are good.\nIn every other branch of administration, has not woman given lessons to\nman? What prince has surpassed in firmness Maria Theresa who, in a\ndisastrous moment, when the fidelity of her subjects was tottering and\nher ministers were struck with terror, undertook herself alone to inspire\nall with new courage? She intimidated by her presence, the disaffected\nDiet of Hungary; she harangued the Magnates in the Latin tongue, and\nbrought her very enemies to swear on their sabres to die for her. This is\nan indication of the prodigies that would be wrought by feminine\nemulation in a social order which would permit free scope to her\nfaculties.\n\n\"And you, the oppressing sex,--would you not go beyond the faults imputed\nto women if you, like them, had been moulded by a servile education to\nbelieve yourselves automatons created to obey prejudices and to cringe\nbefore the master whom chance had given you? Have we not seen your\npretensions to superiority confounded by Catharine, who trampled under\nfoot the masculine sex? In creating titled favorites, she trailed man in\nthe dust, and proved that it is possible for him in full liberty to abase\nhimself beneath woman, whose degradation is forced, and consequently,\nexcusable. It would be necessary, to confound the tyranny of man that,\nfor the space of a century, a third sex should exist, which should be\nboth male and female, and stronger than man. This new sex would prove by\ndint of blows that men as well as women were made for its pleasures; then\nwe should hear men protest against the tyranny of the hermaphrodite sex,\nand confess that force ought not to be the sole law of right. Now why\nare these privileges, this independence, which they would reclaim from\nthis third sex, refused by them to women.\n\n\"In singling out those women who have had power to soar, from the virago,\nlike Maria Theresia, to those of a gentler type, like the Ninons and the\nS\u00e9vign\u00e9s, I am authorized in saying that woman, in a state of liberty,\nwill surpass man in all functions of the mind and body which are not the\nattributes of physical strength.\n\n\"Man seems already to foresee this; he becomes indignant and alarmed when\nwomen give the lie to the prejudice that accuses them of inferiority.\n_Masculine jealousy has especially broken out against women authors;\nphilosophy has kept them out of academic honors, and has sent them back\nignominiously to the household._\"... (p. 148.)\n\n\"What is their existence to-day (that of women)? They exist in privations\nalone, even in the trades, in which man has encroached on everything,\n_even to the minutest occupations of the needle and the pen, while women\nare seen employed in the toilsome labors of the field. Is it not\nscandalous to see athletes thirty years old squatted before a desk, or\ncarrying a cup of coffee with muscular arms_, as if there were not women\nand children enough to attend to the minor details of the counting-room\nand the household.\n\n\"What then are the means of subsistence for women destitute of fortune?\nThe distaff, or else their charms if they have any. _Yes, prostitution\nmore or less glossed over is their only resource_, which philosophy again\ncontests to them; this is the abject fate to which they are reduced by\nthis civilization, this conjugal slavery which they have not even thought\nof attacking.\" (p. 150.)\n\nFourier bitterly reproaches women authors for having neglected to seek\nthe means whereby to put an end to such a state of affairs, and adds with\ngreat reason:\n\n\"Their indolence in this respect is one of the causes that have accrued\nfrom the contempt of man. _The slave is never more contemptible than by a\nblind submission which persuades the oppressor that his victim was born\nfor slavery._, (p. 150).\"\n\nFourier is right, but ... to elevate others is to risk being lost one's\nself in the crowd; and every one is not capable of this degree of\nabnegation.\n\nTo combat for the right of the weak when men have admitted you to their\nranks, is to prepare for yourself a rough way and a heavy cross.\n\nIn the first place, you are exposed to the hatred and raillery of men,\nthen half-cultured women corroded by jealousy, invent a thousand\ncalumnies for your destruction; they feign to be scandalized that a woman\ndare protest against the inferiority and use of her sex; they enter into\nleague with the masters, clamor louder than they and satirize you without\nmercy.\n\nNow all women are not made to shrug their shoulders in the face of this\ncohort of morbid minds ... they love peace too well, they lack courage,\nand _they do not care enough for justice_; is it not so, ladies?\n\nLet us return to Fourier. It is known that he admits several social\nperiods. According to him, the pivot of each of them hinges on love and\nthe degree of liberty of woman.\n\n\"As a general rule,\" he says, \"_social progress and changes of the period\nwill be wrought in proportion to the progress of women towards liberty,\nand the decay of the social order will be wrought in proportion to the\ndecline of the liberty of women_.\"\n\nIn another place, he adds in speaking of philosophers:\n\n\"If they treat of morals, they forget to recognize and to claim the\nrights of the weaker sex, _the oppression of which destroys the basis of\njustice_.\"\n\nHe says again, elsewhere:\n\n\"Now, God recognizes as liberty only that which is extended to both\nsexes, and not to one alone; so he has prescribed that all the germs of\nsocial evils, as the savage state, barbarism, civilization, should have\nno other pivot than the enthrallment of women; and that all the germs of\nsocial good, as the sixth, seventh and eighth period, should have no\nother pivot, no other compass, than the progressive affranchisement of\nthe weaker sex.\"\n\nFourier is reproached with having desired the emancipation of woman in\nlove; nothing is more true. But to impute this to him as immorality, men\nmust censure their own morals. Now, these gentlemen considering\nthemselves as wholly _pure_, though themselves representing the\n_butterfly_ in love, infidelity and the simultaneous possession of\nseveral women being only a pastime to them, I do not really see what they\ncan blame in Fourier.\n\nEither what they do is right, and therefore cannot be wrong in woman;\n\nOr what they do is wrong; then why do they do it?\n\nFourier believed in the unity of the moral law and in the equality of the\nsexes; he believed in the lawfulness of the morals of these gentlemen,\n_minus perfidy and hypocrisy_; this is the reason that he claims\nemancipation in love for woman: he is logical.\n\nBesides, he repeats continually that the ethics that he depicts would\ncause disorder in the civilized period; and that they can only be\nestablished progressively in subsequent periods. Many among the\nPhalansterians reject Fourier's ethics with respect to love as well as\nhis Theodicy, and I myself have heard several discourses in which the\norator condemned, not only falsity in conjugal relations, but also\nlooseness of morals.\n\nFourier and the Saint Simonian orthodoxy have both been guilty of the\nsame error with regard to the emancipation of woman; but, men, I repeat,\nmust be very audacious to impute it to them as a crime, since they\nindulge themselves in worse; as to women, sustained and loved by these\nreformers, let them imitate the pious conduct of Shem and Japhet; one\nowes respect to his father, whatever may be the idea or the wine with\nwhich he is drunken.\n\nNow that we have cited the master, let us enumerate the principal points\nof the Fourierist doctrine, touching the liberty of woman and the\nequality of the sexes:\n\n1. Man and woman are composed of the same physical, moral and\nintellectual elements; there is, therefore, between the sexes, identity\nof nature.\n\n2. The proportion of these elements differs in the two sexes, and\nconstitutes the difference that exists between them.\n\n3. This difference is so equalized that the value shall be equal. Where\nman is the stronger, he takes precedence of woman; where woman is\nstronger, she takes precedence of man.\n\n4. Man belongs to the _major mode_: he has the ascendency over woman in\nintellect, in logic, in the larger manufactures, in friendship; it\nbelongs to him therefore to create positive science, to connect facts, to\nregulate commercial relations, to bind together interests, and to\norganize groups and series. To all these things, woman brings her\nindispensable aid, but by reason of her aptitudes, her services are only\nsecondary therein.\n\n5. Woman belongs to the _minor mode_; she has the ascendency over man in\nthe kind of intellect that applies and adapts, in the intuition that puts\nman on the track of the good to which masculine logic should attain; in\nthe sphere of maternity in which she presides over education, for she\ncomprehends the means to be employed to ameliorate the species in every\nrespect better than man; in the sphere of love in which she has the right\nand the power to civilize and refine the relations of the sexes; and to\nstimulate man to conquest of the intellect, to the amelioration of the\nphysical conditions of the globe, of industry, of art, of social\nrelations, etc.\n\nWoman intervenes to a certain point in the major mode, so does man enter\ninto the minor mode, in which his co\u00f6peration is indispensable.\n\nThus, in general, in man the head predominates, in woman, the heart; but\nas both have a heart and a head, man, through his heart, becomes an aid\nin the minor mode, and woman, through her head, becomes an aid in the\nmajor mode.\n\n6. There are men who are women both in head and in heart; women who are\nmen both in heart and in head; in humanity they form the eighth of an\nexception. Full liberty and right are granted to them.\n\n7. Each member of the Phalanstery follows his vocation, obeys his\nattractions, _for attractions are proportional to destinies_. Therefore\nthe eighth of an exception in both sexes, having an attraction towards\nlabors that belong more especially to the other sex, is at liberty to\nyield to them.\n\n8. All major men and women have an equal vote.\n\n9. All matters are regulated by chiefs _of both sexes_, chosen by the\nfree vote of both sexes.\n\n10. All offices, from the presidency of the group to that of the globe,\nare filled jointly by men and women, who divide between them the details\nof this common function.\n\n11. The mother is the instructress of her children; they belong to her\nalone; the father has no rights over them unless the mother chooses to\nconfer these on him.\n\nSuch is the summary of the Fourierist doctrine on the subject of which we\ntreat.\n\nIf the Societary School has not reached perfect truth, it must be at\nleast acknowledged that it has taken the right way to attain it. Whether\nits theory of the classification and the predominance of faculties in\nconformity with the sexes be exact or not, the error will not be\nproductive of mischievous results in practice. Woman being free to follow\nher aptitudes, being half in rights and functions, could always place\nherself in the exceptional eighth, without fear of encountering jealous\nindividuals, better fitted than herself to warble in the minor key, who\nwould send her back to the duties of the household.\n\nI remember, in this connection, a certain advocate, by no means\n_feminine_, professing a superb disdain of the sex to which his mother\nbelonged, worthy in a word, to be the disciple of P. J. Proudhon; would\nyou know what this man had retained of all his lessons in law? The art of\nsweeping a room properly, of polishing furniture, of hemming napkins and\npocket handkerchiefs neatly, and of compounding sauces. Do you not think,\nillustrious Proudhon, that he might have been advised with more justice\nto _go and iron his collars_, than certain women who write good articles\non Philosophy.\n\nBut let us return to Fourier.\n\nAmong the Socialist Schools, that of Fourier occupies a distinguished\nplace; it is the one most deserving of the gratitude of women through the\nprinciples that it has laid down. Be it understood, we separate in this\nconnection the principles of Liberty and Equality from all that relates\nto the question of ethics, which we cannot resolve in the same manner as\nFourier, _any more for woman than man_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nSUMMARY.\n\n\nAppear, all ye modern innovators, before your judge, the public. Sum up\nyour opinions.\n\nCOMMUNIST. The two sexes differ, do not perform the same functions, but\n_they are equal before the law_.\n\nFor woman to be really emancipated, society must be remoulded\neconomically, and marriage suppressed.\n\nPHILADELPHIAN AND ICARIAN. We are of your opinion, brother, except in\nwhat concerns marriage.\n\nORTHODOX ST. SIMONIAN. If Christianity has despised and oppressed woman,\nit has been because, in its sight, she represented matter, the world,\nevil. We, who are come to give the true meaning of the Trinity,\nrehabilitate or explain what our predecessors have condemned. Woman is\nthe equal of man, because in God, who comprises everything, matter is\nequal to spirit. With man, woman forms the couple which is the social\nindividual, the functionary. As woman is very different from man, we do\nnot take the liberty of judging her; we content ourselves with\n_summoning_ her that she may reveal herself.\n\nNotwithstanding we think that she can only be affranchised by being\nemancipated in love.\n\nPIERRE LEROUX _agitated_. Take care! It is not so much in sex that woman\nshould be affranchised; it is only in her quality of _wife and human\nbeing_. She has sex only for him she loves; to all other men she is what\nthey are themselves: sensation, sentiment, sense. She must be free in\nmarriage and in the commonwealth as man himself should be.\n\nFUSIONIST _interrupting him_. You are right, Pierre Leroux; yet neither\nis the previous speaker wholly wrong; woman is free and the equal of man\nin everything, because spirit and matter are equal in God; because the\nman and the woman form together the human androgynus, the derivation of\nthe divine androgynus. It is not so, my dear sister?\n\nMYSELF. Excuse me, brothers, from joining in your theological discussion;\nmy wings are not strong enough to follow you into the bosom of God, in\norder to assure myself whether he is spirit or matter, androgynus or not,\nbinary, trinary, quarternary, or nothing of all these. It is enough for\nme that you all grant that woman should be free, and the equal of man.\n\nI permit myself only a single observation; that your notion of the couple\nor of the androgynus, at the bottom one and the same thing, tends fatally\nto the subjugation of my sex; if, by a metaphor, a fiction, we make of\ntwo beings, endowed each with a separate will, free-will and intellect, a\nsingle unity; _in social practice_, this unity is manifested by a single\nwill, a single free-will, a single intellect, and the individuality that\nprevails in our society is that which is endowed with strength of arm;\nthe other is annihilated, and the right given to the couple is in reality\nonly the right of the stronger. The use that M. Proudhon has made of\nandrogyny ought to cure you of this fancy; as the use which your\npredecessors made of the ternary ought to have preserved you from\ntrinitary metaphysics. Be it said without offence to you, gentlemen, I\nhave a decided antipathy to any trinities and androgynies whatsoever; I\nam a sworn enemy to all metaphysics, whether profane or sacred,--a\nconstitutional vice, aggravated in me by Kant and his school.\n\nPHALANSTERIAN. For God's sake, gentlemen, let us quit this mysticism. Man\nand woman are different, but the one is as necessary as the other to the\ngreat work that should be accomplished by humanity; therefore they are\nequal. As each individual has a right to develop himself integrally, to\nmanifest himself completely in order to perform the parcellary task which\nhis attractions assign to him, the liberty of one sex can no more be\ncalled in question than can that of the other. Man modulates in major,\nwoman in minor, with an exceptional eighth; but, as in all the general\nfunctions, the combination of the two modes is necessary, it is evident\nthat each of them ought to be double, and that woman ought everywhere to\nbe equal with man.\n\nM. DE GIRARDIN _somewhat abruptly_. Gentlemen, I agree with you that\nwoman ought to be free and equal with man; only I maintain that her\nfunction is to manage, to economize, and to rear her children, while man\nlabors and brings into the household the product of his industry.\n\nAs I wish woman to be freed from servitude and all children to be\nrendered legitimate, I suppress civil marriage, and institute universal\ndowry.\n\nM. LEGOUVE _smiling_. You go too fast and too far, my dear sir, you will\nfrighten everybody. At least, I believe like you in the equality of the\nsexes through the equivalence of their functions, but I take good care\nnot to breathe a word of it. I content myself with claiming for woman\ninstruction, diminution of conjugal servitude, and offices of charity;\ncounting, between ourselves, that these victories obtained, women will be\nin a position through their education and proved utility, to affranchise\nthemselves completely. Well! despite my reserve and moderation, you see\nthat some call me _effeminate_, others _sans culotte_.\n\nM. MICHELET, _rising with tears in his eyes_. Alas, gentlemen, you are\nall in the wrong road; and I am very sorry, my beloved academician\nLegouv\u00e9, to see you employ your elegant pen in leading woman in so\nperilous and irrational a way.\n\nAs to you, gentlemen, who lay claim to liberty and equality of rights for\nwoman, you are not authorized by her to do so; she demands no right, what\nshould she do with it--a being always feeble, always sick, always\nwounded. Poor creature! What can be her r\u00f4le here below, if not to be\nadored by her husband, whose duty it is to constitute himself her\ninstructor, her physician, her confessor, her sick nurse, her\nwaiting-maid; to keep her in a hot-house, and with all these multiplied\ncares to earn beside the daily bread; for woman cannot, ought not to\nwork; she is the love and the altar of the heart of man.\n\nSome among you have dared utter the vile word: Divorce.\n\nNo divorce! The woman who has given herself away, has received the\nimprint of man. You should not abandon her, however guilty she may be. I\nthought in the beginning that after your death she ought to wear mourning\nto the tomb, beyond which, she and her husband would be fused into the\nunity of love. But I have thought better of it; you may appoint a\nsuccessor.\n\nWhile Michelet is seating himself, wiping his eyes, the lid of a coffin\nis seen to rise, and Comte exclaims in a sepulchral tone:\n\n_Worthily_ and _admirably_ spoken, illustrious professor!\n\nWhat! you here? exclaims the assembly. Then one does not perish entirely,\nas you taught your disciples?\n\nCOMTE. No, gentlemen, and I was very agreeably surprised to see myself\nmistaken. But it is not to instruct you about the life beyond the tomb\nthat I return; that would not have been worth the trouble of disturbing\nmyself. It is to express to the great professor Michelet all the\nsatisfaction that I feel in seeing him so richly poetise the ideal that I\nset up, and strew so many flowers over the _admirable_ maxim of Aristotle\nand the _commandment_ of the great St. Paul.\n\nYes, thrice illustrious Master, you have rightly said: woman is made for\nman, she should obey him, be devoted to him; she is only a doll in\nprivate life, absolutely nothing in public life. Yes, men should labor\nfor her; yes, marriage is indissoluble; all this is irreproachable.\n\nAUGUSTE COMTISM. I regret but one thing--that you have not preserved the\nejaculatory orisons of the wife to the husband, and of the husband to the\nwife; it would have been a good example and have made a fine effect to\nsee them every morning kneeling face to face, with clasped hands and\nclosed eyes. I hope that this is only forgetfulness, and that you will\nre\u00ebstablish this detail in your next edition. I congratulate you openly\non the happy thought that you have conceived of justifying the absorption\nof woman by man by aid of a wound and the mysteries of impregnation;\nthis will have a great effect on the ignorant.\n\nRebellious women, and the madmen _with corrupt hearts_ who sustain them,\nsay that you are a poetic and ingenuous egotist, that our beloved\nProudhon is a brutal egotist; that I am an egotist by A + B. Let them say\nso; I approve and bless you.\"\n\nThe apparition was preparing to lie down again in his coffin when, having\na passion for encountering phantoms, I seized a corner of his winding\nsheet, and, notwithstanding an unequivocal sign from him of _vade retro_,\nI had the courage to represent humbly to the defunct high priest that the\nbrow of M. Proudhon deserved quite as much to be blessed as that of M.\nMichelet. The defunct gravely crossed his fleshless fore finger and thumb\nover the haughty and irreverent head of the great critic, who neither\nbowed nor seemed infinitely flattered.\n\nIt being his turn to speak, Proudhon rose and said: \"Gentlemen\nCommunists, Philadelphians, Fusionists, Phalansterians, Saint Simonians,\nand you, MM. Girardin and Legouv\u00e9, as well as all of your adherents, you\nare all _effeminate_, men _hardened in absurdity_.\n\n\"If my friend Michelet has gilded, perfumed and sugared the pill for you,\nI cannot imitate his address and moderation, for you know that in\ntemperament I, P. J. Proudhon, am neither tender nor poetical. Permit me\nthen roughly to tell you the truth concerning a question _of which you do\nnot understand the first word_.\n\n\"The Church, St. Thomas d'Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, St. Paul, and Auguste\nComte, as well as the Romans, the Greeks, Manu and Mahomet teach that\nwoman is made for the pleasure and use of man, and that she should be\nsubjected to him; now I have sufficiently established these great truths\nby affirmations without reply. It is demonstrated to-day, therefore, to\nall who believe in me that woman is a passive being, having the germ of\nnothing, who owes everything to man, and that, consequently, she belongs\nto him as the work to the workman. Lest my solution might appear somewhat\nharsh to you, or to savor too much of antiquity of the Middle Ages, I\nhave borrowed of the modern innovators their farce of Androgyny; I have\nmade the couple the organ of Justice; in this couple, woman, transformed\nby man, becomes a triple deity, a domestic idol, subject in everything to\nher priest. I shut her up in the household, and permit her to have only\nthe superintendence of festivals and spectacles, the education of\nchildren and maidens, etc.\n\n\"Is it not evident, gentlemen, that woman, because she is weaker than we,\nis, _by justice_, condemned to obey us, and that _her liberty consists in\nexperiencing no amorous emotion, even for her husband_? Is it not\nevident, in consequence, that you, who do not think as I, are\n_effeminate, absurd_ men, and that the women who are no more willing to\nbe slaves than we were in '89 are _insurgents, impure women whom sin has\nrendered mad_?\"\n\nThe majority of the assembly laugh; De Girardin shrugs his shoulders;\nLegouv\u00e9 bites his lip in order not to laugh; Michelet appears troubled at\nthis sally which may spoil everything. As, in uttering the word\n_insurgent_, the orator glances at me with marked design, I cannot help\nsaying \"yes, I deserve the name of _insurgent_ like our fathers of '89.\nAs to you, if you do not amend, I fear greatly that I shall see you die\nduly confessed and blessed with extreme unction ... and you will have\nwell deserved it!\"\n\nNow, gentlemen, let us ascertain the vote of your honorable assembly.\n\nFour schools,--the Communists, the St. Simonians, the Fusionians and the\nPhalansterians,--with one publicist, M. de Girardin, who makes as much\nnoise by himself alone as a whole school, are for the liberty of woman\nand the equality of the sexes.\n\nMM. Comte, Proudhon and Michelet are against the liberty of women and the\nequality of the sexes.\n\nM. Legouv\u00e9 and his innumerable adherents wish liberty for woman, and\ndesire that she should labor to become equal to man through equivalence\nof functions.\n\nWhich means that the great majority of those _who think_ are, in\ndifferent degrees, for our emancipation.\n\nNow that my readers are acquainted with your several opinions, gentlemen,\nit belongs to me, a woman, to speak myself in behalf of my right, without\nleaning on anything but Justice and Reason.\n\n\n\n\nPART II.\n\nOBJECTIONS TO THE EMANCIPATION OF WOMAN. NATURE AND FUNCTIONS OF WOMAN.\nLOVE. MARRIAGE. LEGAL REFORMS. SUMMARY.\n\n\n\n\nOBJECTIONS TO THE EMANCIPATION OF WOMEN.\n\n\nI.\n\nWhat arguments do the adversaries of the emancipation of women use to\nrefute the equality of the rights of the sexes?\n\nSome, theosophists of the old school, claim that one half of humanity is\ncondemned by God himself to submit to the other half, because, they say,\nthe first woman sinned.\n\nNot wishing to depart from the firm ground of justice, reason and proved\nfacts, we will not argue with this class of adversaries.\n\nOthers, who claim to be imbued with the modern spirit, and pretend to be\ndisciples of the doctrines of liberty, condemn woman to inferiority and\nobedience because, they say, she is weaker physically and intellectually\nthan man;\n\nBecause she performs functions of an inferior order;\n\nBecause she produces less than man in an industrial point of view;\n\nBecause her peculiar temperament prevents her from performing certain\nfunctions;\n\nBecause she is only fit for in-door life; because her vocation is to be\nmother and housewife, to devote herself entirely to her husband and\nchildren;\n\nBecause man protects and supports her;\n\nBecause man is her proxy, and exercises rights both for her and himself;\n\nBecause woman has no more time than capacity to exercise certain rights.\n\nThe rights of woman are in her beauty and our love, add some, gallantly.\n\nWoman does not claim her rights; many women themselves are scandalized by\nthe demands made by a few of their sex, continue other men.\n\nAnd they spare the courageous women who plead the cause of right, and the\nmen who sustain them neither calumnies, nor mockery, nor insult, hoping\nto intimidate the former and disgust the latter.\n\nVain hope! the time in which we could be intimidated has gone by. If it\nis justifiable to fear the opinion of those whom we deem juster and more\nintelligent than ourselves, it would be folly to be disturbed by those\nwhose irrationality and injustice we feel able to demonstrate.\n\nThis double demonstration we are about to attempt, taking up one by one\nthe arguments of these gentlemen.\n\n1. Woman cannot have the same rights as man, because she is inferior to\nhim in intellectual faculties, you say. From this proposition, we have a\nright to conclude that you consider the _human faculties as the basis of\nright_;\n\nThat, the law proclaiming equality of right for your sex, you are all\nequal in qualities, all alike strong and alike intelligent.\n\nThat, lastly, no woman is as strong and as intelligent as you; I cannot\nsay, as the least among you, since, if right is founded on qualities, as\nit is equal, your qualities must be equal.\n\nNow gentlemen, what becomes of these pretensions in the presence of\n_facts_ that show you all unequal in strength and in intellect? What\nbecomes of these pretensions in the presence of _facts_ that show us a\nhost of women stronger than many men; a host of women more intelligent\nthan the great mass of men?\n\nBeing unequal in strength and in intellect, and notwithstanding declared\nequal in right, it is evident therefore that you have not founded right\non qualities.\n\nAnd if you have not taken these qualities into account when your right\nhas been in question, why then do you talk so loudly of them when the\nquestion is that of the right of woman.\n\nIf the faculties were the basis of right, as the faculties are unequal,\nthe right would be unequal; and, to be just, it would be necessary to\naccord right to those who made good their claims to the necessary\nfaculties and to exclude the rest; by this standard many women would be\nchosen and an infinite number of men excluded. See where we end when we\nhave not the intellectual energy to take principles into consideration!\nYou have but one means of evicting us of equality; namely, to prove that\nwe do not belong to the same species as you.\n\n2. Woman, you add, cannot have the same rights as man because, as mother\nand housewife, she performs only functions of an inferior order.\n\nFrom this second proposition, we have a right to conclude that _functions\nare the basis of right_;\n\nThat your functions are equivalent, since your right is equal!\n\nThat the functions of woman are not equivalent to those of man.\n\nYou have to prove then, gentlemen, that the functions _individually_\nperformed by each of you are equivalent; that, for example, Cuvier,\nGeoffroy St. Hilaire, Arago, Fulton, Jacquard, and other inventors and\nscholars have not done more, are not doing more for humanity and\ncivilization than an equal number of manufacturers of pins' heads.\n\nYou have to prove next that the labors of maternity, those of the\nhousehold to which the workman owes his life, his health, his strength,\nthe possibility of accomplishing his task--that these functions without\nwhich there would be no humanity, are not equivalent; that is, as useful\nto the social body as those of the manufacturer of jewels or of toys.\n\nYou have to prove lastly that the functions of the female teacher,\nmerchant, book keeper, clerk, dressmaker, milliner, cook, waiting-maid,\netc., are not equivalent to those of the male teacher, merchant,\naccountant, clerk, cook, tailor, hatter, footman, etc.;\n\nI grant that it is embarrassing to your triumphant argument to encounter\nthe thousands of _facts_ which show us the _real_ woman performing\nnumerous functions in competition with you;\n\nSo it is, and these facts must be taken into account. But gentlemen, I\nhave you in a dilemma! if functions are the basis of right, as right is\nequal, functions are equivalent; in which case those performed by woman\nare not inferior, since none are so. The functions which she performs are\ntherefore equivalent to yours, and, by this equivalence, she again\nbecomes equal.\n\nOr else functions are not the basis of right; did you not take them into\naccount when the establishment of your right was in question; why then do\nyou speak of functions when the question is the right of woman?\n\nExtricate yourself from this as you can; I shall not help you.\n\n\nII.\n\n3. Woman produces less than man industrially, you say. Admitting this to\nbe true, do you count as nothing the great maternal function--the risks\nthat woman runs in accomplishing it;\n\nDo you count as nothing the labors of the household, the cares that are\nlavished upon you, and to which you owe cleanliness and health?\n\nIf the quantity of the product be the origin of the equality of right,\nwhy have those who produce little, those who produce nothing, and all of\nyou who produce unequally, equal right?\n\nWhy are all those women who produce, while their husbands and sons enjoy\nand dissipate, destitute of the rights which the latter possess?\n\nYou do not admit the question of product into that of right when man is\nin question, why then do you admit it when woman is in question?\n\nYou see that this is inconsiderate, irrational, unjust.\n\n4. Woman cannot be the equal of man, because her peculiar temperament\ninterdicts to her certain functions.\n\nWell, then a legislator can, without being unreasonable, decree that all\nmen who are unfitted by temperament for the profession of arms, for\ninstance, are excluded from equality of right!\n\nTemperament, the source of right?\n\nIf a woman had written anything so absurd, she would have been cried down\nfrom one end of the world to the other.\n\nWhy, gentlemen, do you not exclude from equality all men who are weak,\nall those who are incapable of performing the functions that you\n_prejudge_ woman incapable of performing?\n\nWhen you are in question, you admit indeed that the right to perform\nevery function supposes neither the faculty nor the inclination to make\nuse of it; why do you not reason in the same manner when the question\nconcerns us? What would you think of women if, having your rights while\nyou were in subjection, they should keep you in an inferior position\nbecause you could not accomplish the great functions of gestation and\nlactation.\n\nMan, they would say, being unable to be mother and nurse, shall not have\nthe right of being instructed like us; of having, like us, civil dignity.\nHis coarser temperament renders him incapable of being a witness to a\ncertificate of birth or death; it is evident that his clumsiness excludes\nhim judicially from diplomatic functions; we cannot therefore recognize\nhis right to solicit them, etc.\n\nAh! gentlemen, you reason in the same manner in excluding woman from\nequality under the pretext that, in general, she is of a temperament\nweaker than your own; that is, you reason absurdly.\n\n5. Woman cannot be the equal of man in right because he protects and\nmaintains her.\n\nIf it is because you protect and maintain us, that we ought not to have\nour right, restore it then to unmarried women who are of age, and to\nwidows whom you neither protect nor maintain.\n\nRestore their right then to the wives who have no need of your\nprotection, since the law protects them, even against you; to the wives\nwhom you do not maintain, since they bring you either a dowry, or a\nprofession, or services which you would be obliged to recompense if any\nother rendered them to you.\n\nAnd if to be maintained by another, suffices to deprive an individual of\nhis right, take it away from the host of men who are maintained by the\nincomes or the labor of their wives.\n\n6. Man, in the exercise of certain rights, is the proxy of woman.\n\nGentleman, a proxy is chosen freely, and is not imposed on an individual;\nI do not accept you as proxies: I am intelligent enough to transact my\nbusiness myself, and I pray you to restore to me, as well as to all the\nwomen who think as I do, an authority which you use unworthily. If\nmarried women, to have peace, are willing to continue you as their\nauthority, it is their business; but none of you can legitimately retain\nthat of widows and unmarried women who have attained majority.\n\n7. Woman has not the same rights as man, because she has no more time\nthan capacity to exercise them.\n\nHas woman less time and capacity than your working men, pinned twelve\nhours a day to their petty and stultifying tasks? Affirm it if you dare!\n\nDoes it need less time and capacity to make a deposition in a criminal\nsuit, as woman does, than to witness a civil act or a notarial contract,\na right that woman has not.\n\nDoes it need less time and capacity to be the guardian of sons and to\nadminister their fortune, as woman does, than to be the guardian of a\nstranger or of a nephew, and administer their property, a right that\nwoman has not.\n\nDoes it need less time and capacity to superintend a manufactory, a\ncommercial establishment, workmen, as do so many women, than to be at the\nhead of an office, or of a public administration, and to superintend its\nofficials, a right that woman has not?\n\nDoes it need less time and capacity to devote one's self to instruction\nin a large boarding school, as do so many women, than in the chair of a\nprofessorship, as man alone has the right to do?\n\nWoman proves, _by her works_, that she lacks capacity and time no more\nthan you. Facts stifle affirmations for which you should blush. Fie! I am\nglad that I am not a man, lest I might say like things and be led to\npretend that an instructress, a literary woman, a woman artist, an\nexperienced female merchant has not the capacity of a porter or a\nrag-picker because she has not a beard on her chin.\n\n8. The rights of woman are in her beauty and in the love of man.\n\nRights, based on beauty, and on that fragile thing styled man's love!\nWhat are these worth, I ask you, gentlemen?\n\nThen woman shall have rights if she is beautiful, and as long as she\nshall continue so; if she is beloved, and as long as she shall continue\nso? Old, ugly and forsaken, she must be thrown into the car of the\ncondemned to be transported to the guillotine?\n\nIf a woman should say such things, what a universal hue and cry would be\nraised?\n\nYet men pretend that they are rational! We congratulate woman on having\ntoo much common sense ever to be so in this wise.\n\nAfter all these arguments, none of which will bear analysis, comes at\nlast the triumphant objection: women do not claim their rights, many\namong them are even scandalized by the demand made by a few in the name\nof all. Do not women demand them, gentlemen?\n\nWhat are a host of American women doing at the present time?\n\nWhat have a number of English women done already?\n\nWhat did Jean Deroin, Pauline Roland and many others, do here in 1848?\n\nWhat am I doing to-day, in the name of a legion of women of whom I am the\ninterpreter?\n\n_All_ women do not make reclamations, no; but do you not know that every\ndemand of right is made at first singly?\n\nThat slaves accustomed to their chains, do not feel them until their\ninstigators to revolt show them the bruises on their flesh?\n\nA few only demand their rights, you say; but is it in accordance with\nprinciple or with numbers that you judge of the justice of a cause?\n\nDid you wait until _all_ the male population demanded their right of\nuniversal suffrage in order to decree it to them?\n\nDid you wait for the revendication of _all_ the slaves of your colonies\nbefore emancipating them?\n\nYes, it is true, gentlemen, that many women are opposed to the\nemancipation of their sex. What does this prove? That there are human\nbeings abased enough to have lost all sentiment of dignity; but not that\nright is not right.\n\nAmong the blacks, there are many who hate, denounce, and deliver up to\nthe scourge and to death those among them who are meditating how to break\ntheir chains; which is right, which has the sentiment of human dignity,\nthe latter or the former?\n\nWe demand our place at your side, gentlemen, because identity of species\ngives us the right to occupy it.\n\nWe demand our right, because the inferiority inwhich we are kept is one\nof the most active causes of the decay of morals.\n\nWe demand our right, because we are persuaded that woman has to set her\nstamp on Science, Philosophy, Justice and Politics.\n\nWe demand our right, lastly, because we are convinced that the general\nquestions, the lack of solution of which threatens our modern\ncivilization with ruin, can only be resolved by the co-operation of woman\ndelivered from her fetters and left free in her genius.\n\nIs it not a great proof of our insanity, our _impurity_, gentlemen, that\nwe feel this ardent desire to check the corruption of morals, and to\nlabor for the triumph of Justice, the coming of the reign of Duty and\nReason, the establishment of an order of things in which humanity,\nworthier and happier, shall pursue its glorious destinies without the\naccompaniment of cannon or the shedding of blood?\n\nIs it not because the advocates of emancipation are _impure women whom\nsin has rendered mad, beings incapable of comprehending Justice and\nconscientious works_?\n\n\nIII.\n\nGentlemen, we will conclude.\n\nThough that were true which I deny; that woman is inferior to you;\nthough that were true which _facts_ prove false; that she can perform\nnone of the functions which you perform, that she is fit only for\nmaternity and the household, she would be none the less your equal in\nright, because right is based neither on superiority of faculties nor on\nthat of the functions which proceed from them, but on identity of\nspecies.\n\nA human being, like you, having, like you, intellect, will, free will and\nvarious aptitudes, woman has the right, like you, to be free and\nautonomous, to develop her faculties freely, to exercise her activity\nfreely; to mark out her path, to reduce her to subjection, as you do, is\ntherefore a violation of Human Right in the person of woman--an odious\nabuse of force.\n\nFrom the stand point of facts, this violation of right takes the form of\ngrievous inconsistency; for we find many women far superior to the\nmajority of men; whence it follows that right is granted to those who\nought not to have it, according to your doctrine, and refused to those\nwho ought to possess it, according to the same doctrine, since they make\ngood their claim to the qualities requisite.\n\nWe find that you accord right to qualities and functions, _because the\nindividual is a man_, and that you cease to recognize it in the same\ncase, _because the individual is a woman_.\n\nYet you boast of your lofty reason,--yet you boast of possessing the\nsense of justice!\n\nTake care, gentlemen! Our rights have the same foundation as yours: in\ndenying the former, you deny the latter in principle.\n\nA word more to you, pretended disciples of the doctrines of '89, and we\nhave done. Do you know why so many women took part with our Revolution,\narmed the men, and rocked their children to the song of the\n_Marseillaise_! It was because they thought they saw under the\nDeclaration of the rights of men and citizens, the declaration of the\nrights of women and female citizens.\n\nWhen the Assembly took it upon itself to undeceive them, by lacking logic\nwith respect to them, and closing their meetings, they abandoned the\nRevolution, and you know what ensued.\n\nDo you know why, in 1848, so many women, especially among the people,\ndeclared themselves for the Revolution? It was because they hoped that\nthis Revolution would be more consistent with respect to them than the\nformer had been.\n\nWhen, in their senseless arrogance and lack of intelligence, the\nrepresentatives not only forbid them to assemble, but _drove_ them from\nthe assemblies of men, the women abandoned the Revolution by detaching\ntheir husbands and sons from it, and you know what ensued.\n\nDo you comprehend at last?\n\nI tell you truly; all your struggles are in vain, if woman does not go\nwith you.\n\nAn order of things may be established by a _coup de main_, but it is only\nmaintained by the adhesion of majorities; and these majorities,\ngentlemen, are formed by us women, through the influence that we possess\nover men, through the education that we give them with our milk.\n\nWe have it in our power to inspire them from their cradles with love,\nhatred or indifference for certain principles; in this is our strength;\nand you are blind not to comprehend that if man is on one side and woman\non the other, humanity is condemned to weave Penelope's web.\n\nGentlemen, woman is ripe for civil liberty, and we declare to you that we\nshall henceforth regard whoever shall rise against our lawful claim as an\nenemy of progress and of the Revolution; while we shall rank among the\nfriends of progress and of the Revolution, those who declare themselves\nin favor of our civil emancipation, SHOULD THEY BE YOUR ADVERSARIES?\n\nIf you refuse to listen to our lawful demands, we shall accuse you before\nposterity of the crime with which you reproach the holders of slaves.\n\nWe shall accuse you before posterity of having denied the faculties of\nwoman, because you feared her competition.\n\nWe shall accuse you before posterity of having refused her justice,\nbecause you wished to make her your servant and plaything. We shall\naccuse you before posterity of being enemies of right and progress.\n\nAnd our accusation will remain standing and living before future\ngenerations who, more enlightened, more just, more moral than you, will\nturn away their eyes with disdain and contempt from the tomb of their\nfathers.\n\n\n\n\nNATURE AND FUNCTIONS OF WOMAN\n\n\nI.\n\nI think that we have sufficiently though summarily proved to all honest\ninquiries that social right is identical for both sexes since they are\nidentical in species. The question of right being placed beyond\ndiscussion, we can now ask what use woman shall make of her right; in\nother terms, what functions she is qualified to perform in accordance\nwith her whole nature.\n\nLet us first mark the profound difference that exists between right and\nfunction, then define and divide the latter.\n\n_Right_ is the condition _sine qua non_ of the development and\nmanifestations of the human being: it is absolute, general for the whole\nspecies, because the individuals who compose it should be able lawfully\nto develop and manifest themselves.\n\n_Function_ is the use of the faculties of the individual with a view to a\npurpose useful to himself and to others; function is therefore a\nproduction of utility and, in conclusion, the manifestation of the\naptitudes predominating in each of us, whether naturally, or in\nconsequence of education and habit.\n\nSociety, having needs of every kind, has functions of every nature and\nvarious scope; these functions may be classified as follows:\n\n     1. Scientific and philosophic functions;\n     2. Industrial functions;\n     3. Artistic functions;\n     4. Educational functions;\n     5. Medical functions;\n     6. Functions for the preservation of safety;\n     7. Judicial functions;\n     8. Functions of exchange and circulation;\n     9. Administrative and governmental functions;\n    10. Legislative functions;\n    11. Functions of solidarity or of social benevolence and of\n        institutions for the prevention of crime.\n\nThis classification, which would be very imperfect and insufficient, were\nthis a treatise on social organization, being all that is needed for the\nuse that we have to make of it, we shall adhere to it in this place.\n\nMen, and women after them, have deemed proper hitherto to class man and\nwoman separately; to define each type, and to deduce from this ideal the\nfunctions suited to each sex. Neither have chosen to see that numerous\nfacts contradict their classification.\n\nWhat! exclaims the classifiers, do you deny that the sexes differ? Do you\ndeny that, if they differ, they should have different functions?\n\nIf our classification does not seem good to you, criticise it, we ask\nnothing more; but replace it by a better one.\n\nTo criticise your classification, ladies and gentlemen, is what I intend\nto do; but if the elements are wanting to establish a better, can you,\nought you even to require me to present you one.\n\nDo you think me a man, that you exact of me abuse of the _\u00e0 priora_, and\na startling arbitrary course of reasoning. \"Proudhon is right,\" murmur\nthese gentlemen; \"woman is incapable of abstract reasoning, of\ngeneralizing, of _knowing herself_\"....\n\nReally, gentlemen, do you think that it is through incapacity that I am\nunwilling to present to you a classification of the sexes, a theory of\nthe nature of woman?... Let us hasten then to prove the contrary: instead\nof one theory, we will give you _four_. Man and woman form a series only\nwith respect to the reproduction of the species: all the other\ncharacteristics by which it has been attempted to make a distinction\nbetween them are only generalities contradicted by a multitude of facts;\nnow, as a generality is not a law, nothing can be therefore concluded\nfrom these, nothing absolute deduced from them in a functional point of\nview.\n\nOn the other hand, the greatest radical difference of zoological species\nlies in the nervous system, especially in the greater or lesser bulk and\ncomplexity of the encephalus; now, Anatomy admits, after numerous\nexperiments, that, in proportion to the whole size of the body, the brain\nof woman equals in volume that of man; that the composition of both is\nthe same, and Phrenology adds that the organs of the brain are the same\nin both sexes.\n\nLastly, it is a biological principle that organs are developed by\nexercise and atrophied by continued repose; now, man and woman do not\nexercise their encephalic organs in the same manner; educational\ntraining, manners, prejudice, enforced habits tend to develop in the\nmasculine what becomes atrophied in the feminine head; whence it follows\nthat the differences empirically established are by no means the result\nof Nature, but of the accidental causes by which they have been produced.\n\nConclusion: the two sexes therefore, when reared alike become developed\nalike, and are fit for the same functions, except those which concern the\nreproduction of the species.\n\nHere, gentlemen, is a theory complete in all its parts, tenable in an\nanatomo-biologic point of view, and which I challenge you to prove false,\nfor I shall find replies to all your objections.\n\n\nII.\n\nWe admit the principle that the sexes form series in physical, moral,\nintellectual, consequently functional respects.\n\nWe believe that they should become subordinate to each other in\nproportion to their relative excellence; and we take the destiny of the\nspecies as the touchstone of their respective value.\n\nIf we compare the sexes with each other, we prove in a general way, that\nman is merely woman on a coarser scale; we prove in the second place that\nhe is far more animal than woman, since his muscular system is more fully\ndeveloped and since he respires lower; so that he is most evidently a\nmedium between woman and the higher species of apes.\n\nWoman alone contains and develops the human germ; she is the creator and\npreserver of the race.\n\nIt is not quite certain that the co-operation of man is necessary for the\nwork of reproduction; _this is the means chosen by Nature_, but human\nscience will succeed, we hope, in delivering woman from this\ninsupportable subjection.\n\nAnalogy authorises us to believe that woman, the sole depositary of the\nhuman germ, is equally the sole depositary of all the moral and\nintellectual germs, whence it follows that she is the inspirer of all\nknowledge, all discoveries, all justice, the mother of all virtue. Our\nanalogous deductions are confirmed by facts; woman employs her intellect\nin the concrete; she is an acute observer; man is only fit to construct\nparadoxes and to lose himself in the abyss of metaphysics; science has\nonly emerged from the limbo of _\u00e0 priora_ without confirmation, since the\nadvent into this domain of the form of the feminine mind; we shall\naffirm, therefore, that true scholars are feminized minds.\n\nIn moral respects, man and woman differ greatly; the former is harsh,\nrough, without delicacy, devoid of sensibility and modesty; his habitual\nrelations with the other sex modify him only with great difficulty; woman\nis naturally gentle, loving, feeling, equitable, modest; to her, man owes\njustice and his other virtues, when he has any; whence it follows that it\nis really to woman alone that social progress is due; hence it is that\nevery step made towards civilization is marked by an advance of woman\ntowards liberty.\n\nIf we consider each of the sexes in their relation to human destiny, we\nare forced to admit that, if there was reason for the predominance of man\nin the necessity of hewing out this destiny, the pre-eminence of woman is\nensured in the future reign of right and peace.\n\nIt was necessary to struggle and fight in order to establish justice and\nto subject nature to humanity; this belonged of right to man, who\nrepresents muscular force, the spirit of conflict; but as we already\nforesee in the approaching future, the coming of peace, the substitution\nof pacific labor and negotiations for war, it is clear that woman will\ntake rightfully the direction of human affairs, to which she will be\ncalled by her faculties, found better adapted to the end henceforth to be\npursued.\n\nWoman should be the last to develop and manifest herself socially, for\nthe same reason that the human species is the last creation of our globe;\nthe perfect being always appears after those that have served to pave the\nway.\n\nAs it is demonstrated, on the other hand, that, in the scale of the\nvarious organisms, the organ that is superadded to the others to\nconstitute a change of species, governs those which the individual\nderives from inferior species, so woman, fully developed in a social body\norganized for peace and pacific labor, will be the new organ that will\ngovern the social body.\n\nDoes this signify that woman should oppress man? By no means; she would\nthus be ungrateful for the services rendered her, and would trespass\nagainst her gentle nature; but she will teach him to comprehend that _his\nglory is to obey_, to become subordinate to the other sex, because he is\nless perfect, and because his qualities are no longer necessary to the\ngeneral good.\n\nYou laugh, gentlemen, at this second theory; you think it absurd.... So\nit is; for it is the counterpart of the thetic woman of Proudhon. Let us\nproceed then to the third theory.\n\n\nIII.\n\nEvery classification of the human species is a pure subjective creation;\nthat is, one which exists only in the form given to the perception by\nthe intellect; the very conception of humanity with the enumeration of\nthe characteristics which are reputed to distinguish it from the other\nspecies, is stamped with subjectivity.\n\nThe truth is that not a single human being resembles his neighbor; that\nthere are as many different men and women as there are men and women\ncomposing the species.\n\nClassifications, in all things, are illusions of the mind, for nature\nhates identity and never repeats herself: there are not two grains of\nsand, not two drops of water, not two leaves alike; and most probably the\nsun, since the commencement of its existence, has not appeared twice\nidentically the same at its rising. Yet despite the evidence of these\ntruths, despite the conviction which we have attained of the illusion of\nthe senses, of the weakness of our intellect, which can know nothing of\nthe inmost nature of beings; which can only seize upon a few fleeting\ntraces of their personal characteristics; yet despite all these things we\ndare establish series, attribute to them characteristics which are\nspeedily contradicted by facts, and torture and do violence to the only\nbeings that really exist; namely, individuals, in the name of that other\nthing which exists only in our sick brain: kind, class!\n\nThe bitter fruits that have been produced by our mania for classification\nought to cure us of this. Has not this malady, impelling theocratists and\nlegislators to divide humanity into castes and classes, caused most of\nthe calamities of our species? Have we not, thanks to these execrable\ndivisions, a hideous past, the echoes of which bring back to our\nshrinking ears naught but sobs, cries of anger, rebellion, malediction\nand vengeance, and sinister clanking of weapons and chains?\n\nHave we not also to thank them that, on the pages of our history, all\nstained with blood and tears and exhaling an odor of the charnel house,\nwe read nought but tyranny, brutishness and demoralization?\n\nHave we not further to thank them that king and subject, master and serf,\nwhite and black, man and woman become demoralized by oppression,\ninjustice and cruelty on one hand; and intrigue, baseness, and vengeance\non the other?\n\nAre not wrong and wretchedness found everywhere, because inequality, the\noffspring of insane classifications, is found everywhere?\n\nAh! who shall deliver us from our infatuation!\n\nLet us class animals, vegetables, minerals if we will! our errors do not\ninfluence and cannot disturb them; but let us respect the human species\nwhich will escape all classification, however reasonable the process may\nbe, because every human being is changeable, progressive, and differs far\nmore from his fellows than the most intelligent animal from the rest of\nhis species.\n\nLet us leave each one then to make his own autonomic law and to manifest\nhimself in conformity with his nature, and take care only that right\nshall be equal for all; that the strong shall not oppress the weak; that\neach function shall be entrusted to the one individual that is proved the\nbest qualified to perform it; this is all that we can do, all that we\nshould do, if we seek to show ourselves wise and just.\n\nHarmony exists in nature, because each being in it follows peaceably the\nlaws that govern his individuality; it will be the same in humanity, when\nuniversal reason shall comprehend that human order is pre-established in\nthe co-operation of individual faculties left free in their\nmanifestations; and that to establish a factitious, wholly imaginary\norder; that is, true disorder, is to retard the coming of order, peace\nand happiness.\n\nLet us refrain then from all classification of faculties and functions\naccording to the sexes: besides being false, they will lead us to\ncruelty; for we shall oppress those, whether men or women, who are\nneither yielding enough to submit to it nor hypocritical enough to appear\nto do so; and we shall do this without profit to human destiny, but, on\nthe contrary, to its detriment.\n\nHere, gentlemen, is a _nominalistic_ theory which I challenge you to\noverthrow by sufficient reasons: for, as in the first, I shall have\nanswers to all your objections.\n\nWe now come to our last theory, which is yours in the major and minor\nterms, but the opposite in the conclusions.\n\n\nIV.\n\nAll the different parts of the same organism are modified by each other,\nand in this manner the functions become mutually modified.\n\nNow, man and woman differ from each other in important organs.\n\nEach of the sexes must therefore differ from the other not only through\nthe organs that distinguish them, but through the modifications produced\nby the presence of these organs.\n\nThis, gentleman, is my first syllogism: I know that we shall not contest\nthis point--it is classical Biology.\n\nLet us investigate anatomically the organic differences to which\nsexuality subjects man and woman.\n\n_Nervous System._ The so called nerves of feeling are more fully\ndeveloped in woman than in man, those of motion are less developed in the\nformer than in the latter; the cerebellum is more fully developed in the\nhead of man than in that of woman; in the latter, the antero-posterior\ndiameter of the brain preponderates over the bi-lateral, which is greater\nin proportion in the masculine sex: it is also observed that the organs\nof observation, circumspection, subtleness and philoprogenitiveness are\nmore prominent in the head of woman than in that of man, in which the\nreasoning organs, with those of combativeness and destructiveness\npredominate.\n\n_Locomotive System._ Man is larger than woman, he has more compact bones,\nand larger and better developed muscles, his thorax is the reverse of\nthat of woman, in which, the greatest breadth is between the shoulders,\nwhile, with him, it is at the base; the pelvis is larger and broader in\nthe female than the male sex.\n\n_Epidermic and cellular systems._ Man has a more hairy skin than woman;\nwhat is called fat is less abundant in the masculine than in the feminine\norganism; in general, the skin of man is rougher, and his form less\nround; woman has longer and more silky hair. _Splanchnic organs._ The\ncerebral mass is the same in proportion in both sexes, as well as the\norgans of the brain, with the exception of the predominances which we\nhave pointed out; the respiratory systems differ somewhat; woman breaths\nhigher than man; in the latter, the circulation is more active and\nenergetic.\n\nTo these physical differences correspond intellectual and moral\ndifferences.\n\nWoman, having the nerves of feeling more fully developed, is more\nimpressionable and more mobile than man.\n\nBeing weaker and as persistent, she obtains by address and stratagem what\nshe cannot obtain by force; her weakness gives her timidity,\ncircumspection, the necessity of feeling herself protected.\n\nThe kinds of labor that require strength are repugnant to her.\n\nHer maternal destiny renders her an enemy of destruction, of war; and her\nmore delicate organization makes her dread and shun contention. This same\nmaternal destination impresses a peculiar stamp on her intellect; she\nloves the concrete, and is always inclined to transform thought into\nfacts, to incarnate it, to give it a fixed form; her reasoning is\nintuition or quick perception of a general relation, of a truth that man\nelucidates only with great difficulty, by the aid of stilted logic.\n\nWoman is a better observer than man, and carries induction farther than\nhe; she is consequently more penetrating, and is a much better judge of\nthe moral and intellectual value of those about her.\n\nShe has, more than man, sentiment of the beautiful, delicacy of heart,\nlove of good, respect for modesty, veneration for everything superior.\n\nMore provident than he, she has more order and economy, and looks after\nadministrative details with a carefulness which is often carried to\npuerility.\n\nWoman is adroit, sedulous; she excels in works of taste, and possesses\nstrong artistic tendencies.\n\nGentler, more tender, more patient than man, she loves everything that is\nweak, protects everything that suffers; every sorrow, every calamity\nbrings a tear to her eye and draws a sigh from her breast.\n\nThis is woman, such as you paint her, gentlemen.\n\nYou then add:\n\nThe vocation of woman therefore is love, maternity, the household,\nsedentary occupations.\n\nShe is too weak for occupations that demand strength, and for those of\nwar.\n\nShe is too impressionable and too feeling, too good, too gentle to be\nlegislator, judge or juror.\n\nHer taste for household details, a retired life, and the grave functions\nof maternity indicate clearly that she is not made for public\nemployments. She is too variable to cultivate science with profit; too\nfeeble and too much occupied beside to pursue protracted experiments.\n\nHer kind of rationality renders her unsuited to the elaboration of\ntheories; and she is too fond of the concrete and of details to become\nseriously interested in general ideas; which excludes her from all high\nprofessional functions and from those requiring serious study.\n\nHer place is therefore at the fireside to make man better, to sustain\nhim, to care for him, to procure him the joys of paternity, and to fill\nthe place of a good housewife.\n\nSuch are your conclusions: here are mine, admitting as a hypothesis, what\nI affirm with you of woman.\n\n\nV.\n\n1. Woman carrying into Philosophy and Science her subtleness of\nobservation, her love of the concrete, will correct the exaggerated\ntendency of man for abstract reasoning, and demonstrate the falsity of\ntheories constructed, _\u00e0 priori_, on a few facts alone. Then only will\nontology disappear, then will it be recognized that a hypothesis is\nmerely an interrogation point; that truth is always intelligible in its\nnature, however unknown it may be; we shall generalize nothing but known\nfacts, we shall carefully avoid erecting simple generalities into laws,\nand we shall thus have veritable philosophy, and true human science,\nbecause they will bear the imprint of both sexes.\n\n2. Woman carrying her peculiar faculties into the arts and manufactures,\nwill increasingly introduce therein art, perfection in details.\nCultivated in the direction of her aptitudes, she will find ingenious\nmethods of application of scientific discoveries.\n\n3. Patient, gentle, good, more moral than man, she is the born educator\nof childhood, the moralizer of the grown man; the majority of the\neducational functions revert to her of right, and she has her assigned\nplace in special instruction.\n\n4. By her quick intuition and her acuteness of observation, woman alone\ncan discover the therapeutics of nervous affections; her dexterity will\nrender her valuable in all delicate surgical operations. On her should\ndevolve the care of treating the diseases of women and children, because\nshe alone is capable of fully comprehending them; she has her especial\nplace in hospitals, not only for the cure of disease, but also for the\nexecution and surveillance of the details of management and the care of\nthe patients.\n\n5. The presence of woman in judicial functions, as juror and arbiter,\nwill be a guarantee of veritable human justice to all; that is, of\nequity.\n\nWoman alone through her gentleness, her mercy, her sympathetic\ndisposition, and her subtleness and observation, can comprehend that\nsociety has its share of culpability in every fault committed; for it\nshould be organized to prevent wrong rather than to punish it. This point\nof view, especially feminine, will transform the penitentiary system and\nraise up numerous institutions. Then only will the world comprehend that\nthe punishment inflicted on the guilty should be a means of reparation\nand regeneration; society will no longer slay its prisoners as if weak\nand fearful: it will amend the assassin instead of imitating him; it will\nforce the thief to work to make restitution of what he has stolen; it\nwill no longer believe that it has the right by imprisoning a criminal to\ndeprive him of his reason, to drive him to despair, to suicide by\nsolitary confinement; to deprive him completely of marriage; to couple\nhim with those more corrupt than himself. Conscious of its own share of\nculpability, society will repair in penitentiaries the fault of its\ncarelessness: it will be firm, yet kind and moralizing: it will give in\nthem the education which it ought to have given outside, and will prepare\nwork houses for the liberated convicts in order that the contempt and\nhorror often shown toward them by men worse than they may not drive them\nto a second offence.\n\n7. Woman, carrying into the social household her spirit of order and\neconomy, her love of details and abhorrence of waste and foolish expense,\nwill reform government: she will simplify everything; will suppress\nsinecures and the accumulation of offices, and will produce much from\nlittle instead of, like man, producing little from much: the purse of the\ntax-payers will not complain of the change.\n\n8. Under the direct influence of woman as legislator, we shall have a\nreconstruction of all laws; first and before everything, we shall have\npreventive measures, a compulsory education; then the form of legal\nproceedings will be simplified, the civil code recast, and all laws\nconcerning illegitimate children and the inequality of the sexes banished\nfrom it; the laws concerning morals will be more severe, and the penal\ncode more rational and equitable.\n\nBy her administrative reforms born of the economical instinct of woman,\ntaxes will be diminished; her abhorrence of blood and war will greatly\nreduce the fearful impost of blood-shed. Having a deliberative voice, and\nknowing, by her griefs and love the value of a man, it will be only from\nsheer necessity that she will consent to vote bevies of citizens for the\nshambles called wars: she will do this only when her country is menaced\nor when it is necessary to protect oppressed nationalities; in all other\ncases, she will employ the system of conciliation.\n\n9. Woman, being much more economical and a better analyst than man, when\nthoroughly instructed, will soon perceive that nations, like individuals,\ndiffer in aptitudes, and that the end of these differences is union and\nfraternity through exchange of products: she will therefore deter her\ncountry from cultivating certain branches of the acts and manufactures in\nwhich other nations excel and which they can produce to better advantage;\nshe will cure it of the foolish pretension of being sufficient unto\nitself, and will prevent it from sacrificing the interest of the mass of\nconsumers to that of a few producers: thus the barriers and custom duties\nthat separate the different organs of humanity will fall by degrees;\nthere will be treaties of free trade, and all will be gainers by the\ncheapness of products, and the suppression of the expenses of maintaining\na too often annoying department of customs.\n\nThe qualities and faculties of woman not only make her an educator, but\nassure her preponderance in all functions arising from social solidarity;\nshe alone knows how to console, to encourage, to moralize with\ngentleness, to comfort with delicacy; she has the genius of charity; to\nher therefore should revert the superintendence and direction of\nhospitals and prisons for women, the management of charitable\ninstitutions, the care of abandoned children, etc. She should create\ninstitutions to furnish employment to workmen out of work, and to save\nliberated convicts from indolence and relapse into crime.\n\nThus, gentleman, without departing from the data of your theory, you\nbehold woman placed everywhere by the side of man, except in the hard\nlabor from which you yourselves will soon be released by machinery, and\nin the military institutions which, in all probability, will some day\ndisappear.\n\nHitherto institutions, laws, sciences, philosophy have chiefly borne the\nmasculine imprint; all of these things are only half human; in order that\nthey may become wholly so, woman must be associated in them ostensibly\nand lawfully, consequently, she must be cultivated like you; culture will\nnot make her like you, do not fear it; the rose and the carnation growing\nin the same soil, under the same sky, in the same sunshine, with the\ncares of the same gardener, remain rose and carnation: they are more\nbeautiful in proportion as they are better cultivated, and as the\nelements which they absorb are more abundant: if man and woman differ, a\nsimilar education will only make them differ still more, because each\nwill employ it in the development of that which is peculiar to himself.\n\nFor the interest of all things and people it is necessary that woman\nshould enter all the avocations of life, that she should have her\nfunction in all the functions: _after_ the general interest of humanity,\ncomes that of the family; it cannot go _before_ it.\n\nSince woman now is generally mother and housewife while performing at the\nsame time a host of other functions, she will become none the less so in\ntaking upon herself a few more; besides, the time of life at which an\nindividual enters certain important functions is that at which woman has\nfinished her maternal task. A few women acting as public functionaries\nwill not hinder the great majority of their companions from remaining in\nprivate life, any more than a few men in the same position hinder the\nmass of men from continuing there.\n\n\nVI.\n\nYou admit a classification at last, you say, and still more you grant\nthat there are masculine and feminine functions. You are mistaken,\ngentlemen: you accused me of being incapable of giving you a complete\ntheory, I have given you the outlines of four--outlines which it would be\neasy for me to extend and perfect. But I do not admit a single one of\nthese theories as a whole.\n\nAre you eclectic, then?\n\nThe gods forbid! I have as much repugnance to eclecticism, as to _mystic\ntrinitarianism_ and _androgyny_.\n\nI do not admit the theory of the identity of the sexes, because I believe\nwith Biology that an essential organic difference modifies the entire\nbeing; that therefore woman must differ from man.\n\nI do not admit the theory of the superiority of either sex, because it is\nabsurd; humanity is man-woman or woman-man; we do not know what one sex\nwould be if it were not incessantly modified by its relations with the\nother, and we know them only as thus modified: What we know to a\ncertainty is that they form together the existing condition of humanity;\nthat they are equally necessary and equally useful to each other and to\nsociety.\n\nI do not admit my third theory because it is ultra-nominalism nominalism;\nif it is really true that all the individuals of both sexes differ among\nthemselves in a far more remarkable manner than those of the other\nspecies, it is none the less true that a classification, founded upon a\nconstant anatomical characteristic, is legitimate, and that the principle\nof classification lies in the nature of things, for if things appear to\nus classified, it is because they are so; the laws of the mind are the\nsame as those of Nature so far as knowledge is concerned; we must admit\nthis, unless we are sceptics or idealists, and I am neither the one nor\nthe other; neither am I a realist in the philosophic acceptation of the\nword, for I do not believe that the species is something apart from the\nindividuals in which it is manifested; it is in them and through them;\nthis repeats the affirmation that there are individuals identical in one\nor several respects, although different in all others.\n\nLastly, I do not admit the fourth theory, although it may be true in\nprinciple, because the numerous facts that contradict the distinguishing\ncharacteristics, do not permit me to believe that these characteristics\nare laws established by sexuality.\n\nIn fact, there are brains of men in heads of women, and _vice versa_.\n\nMen mobile and impressionable; women firm and insensible.\n\nWomen large, strong and muscular, lifting a man like a feather; men\nsmall, frail, and of extreme delicacy of constitution.\n\nWomen with a stentorian voice and abrupt manners; men with a soft voice\nand graceful manners.\n\nWomen with short, harsh hair, bearded, with rough skin and angular\nfigures; men with long, silky hair without beard, round and portly.\n\nWomen with an energetic circulation of blood; men in whose veins it\ncourses feebly and slowly.\n\nWomen frank, inconsiderate and daring; men strategic, dissembling and\ntimid.\n\nWomen violent, loving strife, war and contention, and wont to storm on\nevery occasion; men gentle, patient, dreading strife, and exceedingly\ntimid.\n\nWomen loving abstract reasoning, generalizing and synthetizing much, and\nwithout intuition of any sort; men intuitive, acute observers, good\nanalysts, incapable of generalizing.... I know many such.\n\nWomen insensible to works of art, and without the sentiment of the\nbeautiful; men full of enthusiasm for both.\n\nWomen immoral, immodest, respecting nothing or no one; men moral, chaste\nand reverential.\n\nWomen extravagant and disorderly; men economical and parsimonious to\navarice.\n\nWomen thoroughly selfish, rigid, disposed to take advantage of the\nweakness, kindness, folly or misery of others; men full of generosity,\nmansuetude, and self-sacrifice.\n\nWhat follows from these undeniable facts? that the law of sexual\ndifferences is not manifested through the several characteristics which\nhave been laid down.\n\nThat these characteristics may be only the result of education, of the\ndifference of prejudices, of that of occupations, etc.\n\nThat, as these generalities may be the fruit of the difference of\ntraining and surroundings, nothing can be legitimately deduced from them\nas to the functions of woman; would it not be absurd, in fact, to pretend\nthat a woman who is organized for philosophy and the sciences _can not_,\nought not to occupy herself with them because she is a woman, while a\nman, who is incapable of them but foolish and vain enough to be ignorant\nof his incapacity, can and ought to engage in them because he is a man?\n\nFunctions belong to those who prove their aptitude for them, and not to\nan abstraction called sex, for, definitively, every function is\nindividual in its aggregate or in its elements.\n\n\nVII.\n\nWe have explained why we reject the theories that we have sketched; we\nwill now explain why we neither give nor wish to give a classification of\nthe sexes.\n\nWe do not give a classification, because we neither have nor can have\none; the elements for its establishment are lacking. A biological\ndeduction permits us to affirm that such a one exists; but it is\nimpossible to disengage its law in the present surroundings; the\nveritable feminine stamp will be known only after one or two centuries of\nlike education and equal rights: then there will be no need of a\nclassification, for the function will fall naturally to the proper\nfunctionary under a system of equality in which the social elements\nclassify themselves.\n\nMy belief and my hopes concerning the future, I shall not confess; for I\nmay be in error, since I have no facts to control my intuitions, and\neverything that is purely Utopian has always a dangerous side. Besides\nhave I not said that, had I formed a classification, I should not give\nit? Why not? Because, a detestable use would be made of it, as usual, if\nit were adopted.\n\nHitherto, have not men availed themselves of classifications based upon\ncharacteristics afterwards recognized as purely imaginary to oppress,\ndistort and calumniate those banished to the inferior ranks?\n\nHistory is at hand to give us this salutary lesson. Where is now to-day\nthe _ville-pedaille_, the villains and base-tenants, fit only to drain\nditches and to be stripped to the skin? Inventing, governing, making laws\nfor, and gradually transforming our globe, devastated by the _superior\nand only capable_ species, into a smiling and peaceful domain.\n\nUpon all classification of the human species, whether in castes, in\nclasses, or in sexes, are based three wrongs.\n\nThe first is to make it a crime in the individual degraded into the lower\nseries, that he does not resemble the conventional type that has been\nformed of this series, while the so called superior being is not required\nto resemble his type; thus a weak, cowardly, unintelligent man, a _man\nmilliner_ or an _embroiderer_, is none the less a man, while a virago, a\nfirm and courageous woman, a great queen, a woman philosopher are not\nwomen, but men whom none love and who are given over as a prey to wild\nbeasts, jealous, effeminate men, to devour.\n\nThe second wrong is to take advantage of the conventional type to deform\nthe being classed in the inferior series in order to kill his energies\nand to hinder his progress. Then, to attain this end, education, social\nsurroundings are organized, prejudices are invented; and so successfully\nis this done in general that the oppressed, ignorant of himself, believes\nhimself really of an inferior nature, resigns himself to his chains, and\nis even indignant at the rebellion of those of his series who are too\nenergetic and individual not to react against the part to which social\nimbecility has condemned them.\n\nThe third wrong is to take advantage of the state of debasement to which\nthe oppressed has been reduced, to calumniate him and deny his rights;\nmen exclaim, Look! See the serf! see the slave! see the negro! see the\nworkingman! see woman! What rights would you grant these inferior and\nfeeble natures? _They are incapable of knowing and ruling themselves_: we\nmust therefore think for them, wish for them, and govern them.\n\nAh no, gentlemen, these are not men and women; they are the deplorable\nresults of your selfishness, of your frightful spirit of domination, of\nyour imbecility.... If there were infernal gods, I should devote you to\nthem relentlessly with all my heart. Instead of calumniating your fellows\nthat you may preserve your privileges, give them instruction and liberty;\nthen only will you have the right to pass judgment on their nature: for\nwe can only know the nature of a human being when it has become freely\ndeveloped in equality.\n\nI think that I have justified my repugnance to give a classification of\nthe sexes, both by the impossibility of actually establishing a\nreasonable one, and by the very legitimate fear of the bad use that would\nbe made of it.\n\nBut it will be objected, and not without reason, that a classification is\nnecessary for social practice.\n\nI consent to it with all my heart, since I have reserved my positions,\nand proved the worthlessness of existing classifications.\n\nAs it is my principle that the function should fall to the functionary\nwho proves his capacity, I say that at present, through the difference of\neducation, man and woman have distinct functions; and that we must give\nto the latter the place that in general she deserves.\n\nI add that it is a violation of the natural right of woman to form her\nwith a view to certain functions to which she is destined; she should in\nall respects enjoy the rights common to all; it cannot rightfully be said\nto her any more than to man, \"your sex cannot do that, cannot pretend to\nthat;\" if it does it and pretends to it, it is because the sex can do it\nand pretend to it; if it could not, it would not do it; the first right\nis liberty, the first duty, the culture of one's aptitudes, the\ndevelopment of his reason and his power of usefulness: if a god should\naffirm the contrary, not conscience, but the god would speak falsely.\n\nLet woman take the place therefore that is suited to her present\ndevelopment, but let her never cease to remember that this place is not a\nfixed point, and that she should continually strive to mount upwards\nuntil, her peculiar nature revealing itself through equality of\neducation, instruction, right and duty, she takes her rightful place by\nthe side of man and on a level with him.\n\nLet her laugh at all the utopian follies elaborated concerning her\nnature, her functions determined for eternity, and remember that she is\nnot what nature, but what subjection, prejudice, ignorance has made her;\nlet her escape from all her chains, and no longer permit herself to be\nintimidated and debased.\n\nThus, gentlemen, all my ideas on the nature and functions of woman may be\nsummed up in these few propositions:\n\nI believe, because a physiological deduction authorizes me to do so, that\ngeneral humanity common to both sexes is stamped by sexuality.\n\nIn _fact_, I know not, and you know no better than I, what are the true\ncharacteristics arising from the distinction of the sexes, and I believe\nthat they can be revealed only by liberty in equality, parity of\ninstruction and of education.\n\nIn social practice, functions should belong to those who can perform\nthem: woman therefore should perform those functions for which she shows\nherself qualified, and society should become so organized that this may\nbe possible.\n\nWhat are these functions relative to her degree of present development? I\nwill tell you directly.\n\n\n\n\nLOVE; ITS FUNCTION IN HUMANITY.\n\n\nI.\n\nYou tell the child that lies, \"it is wrong to deceive; you would not wish\nothers to deceive you.\"\n\nYou tell the child that pilfers, \"it is wrong to steal; you would not\nwish others to steal from you.\"\n\nYou tell the child that takes advantage of his strength and knowledge to\ntorment his younger companion; \"you would not wish others to do these\nthings to you; you are wicked and cowardly.\"\n\nThese are good lessons. Why then, when the child has become a young man,\ndo you say: _Young men must sow their wild oats_?\n\n_To sow their wild oats_ is to deceive young girls, to destroy their\nfuture, to practice adultery, to keep mistresses, to visit brothels.\n\nYet mothers, women thus consent to the profanation of their sex!\n\nThose who forbade their child to steal a toy, permit him to steal the\nhonor and repose of human beings!\n\nThose who shamed their son for falsehood, permit him to deceive poor\nyoung girls!\n\nThose who made it a crime in their son to oppress those weaker than\nthemselves, permit him to be oppressive and perfidious toward women!\n\nThen they complain later that their sons treat them ill; that they\ndishonor and ruin themselves;\n\nThat they desire the death of their parents, in order to enrich the\nusurers from whom they have borrowed money to maintain their mistresses\nin luxury.\n\nThey complain that they destroy their health, and give their mothers puny\ngrandchildren, for whose existence they are in continual anxiety.\n\nAh! ladies, you have only what you deserve; bear the weight of a joint\nresponsibility which you cannot escape. You authorized your sons to sow\ntheir wild oats; endure the consequences.\n\nBut a mother cannot be the confident of her son, it is said.\n\nWhy not, madam, if you have brought him up in such a way as to have no\ndishonorable confidence to make to you.\n\nHe would have none to make, if you had accustomed him to conquer himself,\nto respect every woman as though she were his mother, every young girl as\nthough she were his sister; to treat others as he would think it right to\nbe treated by them; if you had fully inculcated on him that there is but\none system of morality, which both sexes are equally bound to obey; if\nyou had caused him to honor, love and practice labor; if you had told him\nthat we live to improve ourselves, to practise justice and kindness, and\nto render back to humanity what it does for us in protecting us,\nenlightening us, rendering us moral, surrounding us with security and\ncomfort; that in fine our glory lies in subjecting ourselves to the great\nlaw of Duty.\n\nIf you had reared him in this manner, madam, on surprising in your son\nthe first signs of the ardent attraction that man feels toward the other\nsex, far from abandoning the education of this instinct to the chances of\ninexperience, you would do for it what you did for the others; you would\nteach the young man to subject it to a wise discipline.\n\nInstead of repeating the stupidly atrocious phrase; _young men must sow\ntheir wild oats_, you would have taken your son's hand affectionately in\nyour own, and, looking in his face, would have said: \"My child, Nature\ndecrees that a woman should henceforth attract you more strongly than I,\nand should maintain or destroy what I have so laboriously built up: I do\nnot murmur at this; it must be so. But my affection and duty require me\nto enlighten you in this grave juncture. Tell me, if a young man, to\nsatisfy the instinct which is now awakening in you, should corrupt your\nsister, should sacrifice her life, what would you think of him? what\nwould you do?\"\n\nThe young man, accustomed from childhood to practise Justice, would not\nfail to reply: \"I should think him depraved and cowardly. Would he not be\npunished?\"\n\n\"No, my son, the seducer is not punished by the law.\"\n\n\"Well! I would kill him, for my right of justice reverts to me when the\nlaw makes no provision.\"\n\n\"Right, my child. Then you will be neither depraved nor cowardly with\nrespect to any young girl; you will not deserve the sentence which you\nhave pronounced; namely, death. You will respect all young girls and\nwomen as you would wish your sister, your daughter to be respected.\n\n\"Another question: what would you think of a man who should persuade me\nto betray your father; who should rob him of my heart and cares; who\nshould draw me aside from the grave duties of maternity? What would you\nthink of the man who should act thus with respect to your own companion?\"\n\n\"I would judge him like the former and would treat him no better.\"\n\n\"Right again. Then you will respect all married women as you would wish\nyour mother and your wife to be respected; and if you should meet any one\ntowards whom you should feel attracted, or who should be disloyal enough\nto seek to attract you, you will shun her: for flight is the sole remedy\nfor passion.\n\n\"A multitude of women, innocent at first, have been turned aside from the\nright path by men who do not think as you do. They now avenge themselves\nupon your sex for the evil it has done them. They corrupt and ruin men\nwho, in their company, lose all sense of morality, who learn to laugh at\nwhat you believe and venerate, and undermine and destroy their health. Do\nyou feel the deplorable courage to expose yourself to such risks?\"\n\nThe young man, practised from childhood to subject his inclinations to\nreason and justice, would reply: \"No, mother, I will not do what I would\nnot wish my companion to do; I will neither degrade myself morally, nor\ndestroy my health, nor contribute my share towards perpetuating a state\nof things which degrades the sex to which belongs my mother, my sister,\nmy wife and my daughters, should I be so happy as to possess them.\n\n\"I acknowledge frankly that I foresee a violent struggle with myself,\nbut, thanks to the moral training to which you have accustomed me, thanks\nto the ideal of destiny which you have given me, which I have accepted in\nthe plenitude of my reason, and which my duty marks out for me, I do not\ndespair of subduing myself.\"--\"This victory will be less difficult to\nobtain, if you employ yourself usefully and seriously; for you will thus\nattract your vitality to the superior regions of the brain. You will do\nwisely to add to this, much physical exercise; to abstain from too\nsubstantial a diet, and especially from stimulating drinks! you know the\nreaction of the physical upon the moral system. Carefully avoid\nlicentious reading and improper conversation; give a place in your mind\nto the virgin who will be united to you; think and act as if in her\npresence; it will guard you and keep you pure. This sweet ideal will\nstrengthen you against temptation, and contribute greatly to render you\ninsensible towards those women who should have no place in your heart.\"\n\n\"Love, my child, is a thing most serious in its results; for the beings\nwhom it unites become modified by each other; it leaves its traces,\nhowever short may be its duration.\n\n\"Its end is Marriage, one of the ends of which is the continuity of the\nspecies. Now, you know the effects of solidarity of blood; it is most\nimportant therefore that you should choose for your companion a woman\nwhose character, morals and principles are in unison with your own; not\nonly for your happiness, but for the _organization_ of your children, the\nharmony of their nature and conduct.\n\n\"If passion does not leave you sufficiently free in your judgment, come\nto me: I will see for you, and if I say: my son, this woman will debase\nyou, will cause you to commit faults; be sure that your children will\nhave evil propensities; she is not adapted to rear them according to your\nideal, which she will never accept, because she is vain and selfish; if\nI tell you this, I know, my son, that whatever may be your suffering, you\nwill renounce a woman whom you would cease to love after a few months'\nunion, and will prefer a transient sadness to a life of unhappiness.\"\n\n\nII.\n\nThe mother who has just shown her son why love should be subjected to\nReason and Justice, and has pointed out to him what he should do to\nsubdue its animal phase, perceives also the awakening of this instinct in\nher daughter. She wins her attention and gains her confidence by\nrevealing to her what is passing within her heart, telling her that, at\nher age, she felt the same.\n\n\"Hitherto,\" continues she, \"you have been but a child; your career as a\nwoman is now commencing. You desire the affection of a man, and your\nheart is moved at the sweet thought of becoming a mother. Do not blush,\nmy daughter; it is lawful, on condition that your desires are made\nsubject to Reason and the law of Duty.\n\n\"Many snares will be spread before your steps; for men of all ages\naddress to a young girl innumerable flattering speeches, and surround her\nwith homage which renders her vain and coquettish if she has the weakness\nto suffer herself to be intoxicated thereby. Persuade yourself fully that\nall this adoration is not addressed to you individually, but to your\nyouth, to the brightness of your eyes, to the freshness of your\ncomplexion, and that, were you far better than you are and far superior\nin intellect, these men would be ceremoniously and frigidly polite, were\nyou thirty years older. This thought present in your mind will make you\nsmile at their frivolous and common-place jargon, and will preserve you\nfrom many weaknesses, such as rivalry of dress, petty jealousies, and the\nridiculous blunder of playing the young girl at fifty.\n\n\"As you can espouse but one man, it is sufficient to be loved by one in\nthe manner that you wish. A woman who comports herself voluntarily so as\nto captivate the hearts of many men, and leaves each to believe that she\nprefers him above all, is an unworthy coquette, who sins against Justice\nand Kindness: against Justice, inasmuch as she demands a sentiment for\nwhich she can make no return; as she acts towards others as she would\nthink it unjust that others should act towards her; against Kindness,\ninasmuch as she risks causing suffering to sincere hearts and sacrificing\ntheir repose to a pleasurable impulse of vanity: such a woman, my child,\nis contemptible; she is a dangerous enemy of her sex; first, because she\ngives a bad opinion of it; next, because she is an enemy to the repose of\nother women; I know that you are too ingenuous, too true and too worthy\nto fear that you will fall into such errors.\n\n\"You have acknowledged to me that your young imagination had pictured to\nitself a man. Far from banishing this ideal, let it be always present to\nyour mind, much less in its physical aspect than in that of intellect,\nmorality and industry. This image will do more to keep you safe than all\nmy counsels, than all the surveillance that I might, but never would\nexercise over you, because this would be unworthy of us both.\n\n\"Do not forget however that an ideal is absolute; that the reality is\nalways defective; do not therefore seek in the man to whom you shall give\nyour heart, a realization of the ideal, but the qualities and faculties\nwhich, with your aid, will permit him to approximate to what you wish to\nsee him. You yourself are the ideal of a man, not such as you are, but\nsuch as he will aid you to become.\n\n\"I dwell upon this point, my daughter, because nothing is more dangerous\nthan to insist on finding the ideal in the reality; this makes us over\ndifficult and lacking in indulgence; and, if we have a lively imagination\nand little reason, renders us unhappy and involves us in innumerable\nerrors.\n\nYou know and feel that the end of love is Marriage; now one of your\nduties as lover and spouse is the improvement of the one to whom you\nshall be united. You will stand with him in two different relations!\nfirst as his betrothed, afterwards as his wife. Your modifying power\nwill, in the first case, be exercised in a direct proportion to his\ndesire to please and to be worthy of you; in the second, in proportion to\nhis confidence, esteem and affection for you. In the first case, he will\n_wish_ to modify himself; in the second, he will do so without knowing\nit.\"\n\n\"What, mother, will he not always love me the same?\"\n\n\"Love, my child, undergoes transformations which we should expect and to\nwhich we should submit; in the beginning it is a fever of the soul; but\nfever is a condition which cannot last without destroying life. Your\nhusband, while loving you perhaps more deeply, will love you less\nardently than before Marriage. Your love will become transformed, why\nshall not his be the same?\n\n\"You cannot imagine how much trouble results from the ignorance of women\non this point, and from the vain pursuit of the ideal in love. Many\nwomen, believing that their husband loves them no longer because he\nloves them in a different manner, become detached from him, suffer, and\nbetray their duties; others, dreaming of perfection in the loved one,\nfancy that they have found it, and becoming disabused after the fever has\npast, quit him, accusing him of having deceived them; they love others\nwith the same illusion, followed by the same disenchantment, until age\ncreeps on without curing them of the chimera. Lastly, there are others\nwho, comprehending only the first period of love, cease to love the man\nwho has passed beyond it, and pursue another love which will bring them\nthe same fever; these, as you comprehend, have not the slightest idea of\nwoman's grave duties in Love.\n\n\"What I have just said of women is equally true of men. You will avoid\nthese dangers, my daughter, you who have been accustomed from childhood\nto submit to reason; who know that all reality is imperfect, that habit\nweakens sentiment, you will therefore take the man who suits you, as he\nis, designing to improve him and to render him happy, knowing in advance\nthat his love will change without becoming extinguished, if you succeed\nin gaining his affection, confidence and esteem, so that he will find in\nyou good counsel, peace, assistance and security. You are too pure, my\ndaughter, to foresee all the snares that will be spread for you. It\nbelongs to me therefore to arm your youthful prudence: You will perhaps\nencounter men married or betrothed who, according to the common\nexpression, _will pay court to you_, and will utter innumerable sophisms\nto justify their conduct.\"\n\n\"Their sophisms would fall to the ground before the simple answer: Sir,\nas I should be driven to despair if another woman should rob me of him\nwhom I loved, as I should despise and hate her, all your compliments\ncannot persuade me that it is right for me to do what I would not that\nothers should do to me. If you return to the subject, I shall inform the\nperson interested.\n\n\"Right, my child: but if a young man who was free should speak of love,\nand urge you to write to him in secret?\"\n\n\"Might he not have good reason for acting in this manner?\"\n\n\"None, my child. You must know that men are exceedingly corrupt; that\nmany among them eschew marriage, flit from one woman to another, take\nadvantage of our credulity, and make use of the most impassioned language\nto lead us in the way of shame and perdition. Now, my child, know besides\nthat we bear the weight of men's faults as well as of our own; the verbal\nand written promises of a man bind him to nothing. If, suffering yourself\nto be led astray, you should become a mother, the child would remain your\ncharge; and you could no longer hope for marriage; I say nothing of our\ngrief and shame, nor of the terrible risks to which you would expose your\nbrother, who might perish in punishing the vile seducer whom the law does\nnot touch. If a man seeks you therefore unknown to us, be sure that it is\nbecause his intentions are evil; that he considers you as a toy which he\npurposes to break when it ceases to amuse him. Now, my daughter, you know\nthat woman is created to be the worthy companion of man; that she is not\nborn to be sacrificed to him as an object of pleasure. Instead therefore\nof suffering yourself to be seduced, profit by the influence over men\nwhich is given you by your beauty and grace, to recall them to their\nduties: in this manner, you may be the means of saving many women; you\nwill give a favorable opinion of your sex, and will prepare a good\nexample for your daughter by setting one to your companions, many of whom\nwill follow it in order to share in the esteem that will surround you;\nalways remember that our acts not only injure ourselves, but we have a\njoint responsibility with others, and consequently no one can be lost or\nsaved alone.\n\n\"One word more, my child. In your uncertainties, do not hesitate to\nconfide your troubles to me; do not say, My mother is too reasonable to\nunderstand me in this. Was it not by becoming a child again in order to\ncomprehend you, that I fulfilled my sacred task of instructor? be\npersuaded that it will not be more difficult for me to become a young\ngirl again in order to comprehend, while remaining a tender and\nexperienced mother to advise you.\n\n\"You are free: I am not your censor, but your elder sister, who loves you\nwith devotion and desires your happiness before all things. As a\nrecompense for my love and my long-continued cares, I only ask to be your\nbest friend; that is, the one in whose presence you will think and speak\naloud. Is this asking too much of you, who are my joy and crown.\"\n\nThis is the way, ladies, in which the woman who has attained majority,\nstrives to educate the world in Love.\n\n\nIII.\n\nThe young girl and young man enter into society. The prudent mother knows\nthat it is gently insinuated to her son that she is a _prude_, a _dotard_\nwho knows nothing of the passions; who does not suspect that _everything\nin nature is good_, and should be respected; and who has read the\nhistory of our species to so little purpose that she has not perceived\nthat humanity has love in all forms: the _polygamic_ and _polyandric_,\nand even ... the _ambiguous_.\n\nShe knows also, that he is told that the satisfaction of the animal\ninstinct is necessary to the _health_ of man, and that brothels are\nplaces of public utility.\n\nShe knows, lastly, that young and giddy girls, with lax principles, make\ndangerous confidences to her daughter.\n\nIt is time, in opposition to these lax doctrines and pernicious examples,\nto give to her children the philosophy of Love. According to her method,\nshe suffers is to elucidate itself.\n\nMy son, says she, what is the end of the attraction of mineral molecules\ntowards each other?\n\nSON. The _production_ of a body having a determined form.\n\nMOTHER. What is the end of the attraction of the plant for heat, light,\nair, the elements which it absorbs?\n\nSON. The _production_ of its own body, the development of its organs, and\nof its properties, its preservation.\n\nMOTHER. And do you know, my daughter, what is the end of the attraction\nof the pistil and stamens of the flower.\n\nDAUGHTER. The _production_ of a being resembling its parents.\n\nMOTHER. Why do we as well as the animals experience an inclination or\nattraction for certain kinds of food?\n\nSON. It is evidently in order to incite to action the organs which\nprocure to the organism the elements adapted to _produce_ blood.\n\nMOTHER. Why do both sexes of the same species experience an attraction\ntowards each other?\n\nDAUGHTER. For the _production_ of young to perpetuate the species.\n\nMOTHER. Why do the females, and often males among animals experience an\ninclination or attraction to take care of the young?\n\nDAUGHTER. In order to preserve them and to educate them as far as is in\ntheir power, that they may be able to provide for themselves.\n\nMOTHER. Are you quite sure, my children, that the end of these\nattractions is not the attraction itself, the procurement of a pleasure?\n\nSON. The pleasure seems to me only the means of impelling the being to\nfulfill a necessary or useful function. Thus the end of our scientific,\nartistic and industrial inclinations or attractions is not the pleasure\nwhich we take in their satisfaction, but the _production_ of science, art\nand industry.\n\nDAUGHTER. That is, the increase and progress of our intellect through the\nknowledge of the laws of Nature, in order to modify this nature with a\nview to our wants and pleasures.\n\nMOTHER. To what inclination or attraction is Society due?\n\nSON. To our attraction for our fellow beings.\n\nDAUGHTER. This attraction is the father of Justice and of Goodness: it\n_produces_ them.\n\nMOTHER. Will you generalize the character of this inclination or\nattraction in accordance with what we have just said?\n\nSON. The end of all attraction or inclination is the _production_,\n_progress_ and _preservation_ of beings.\n\nMOTHER. Are all instincts good which are merely inclinations or\nattractions?\n\nSON. For animals, which are subject to fatality, they are; because they\ntend directly to their end, without ever appearing to deviate from it. In\nour species, they are good in principle, if we regard their end; but they\nmay become evil through the deviation to which our liberty subjects them.\n\nMOTHER. By what token can we know that our instinct has a right tendency?\n\nDAUGHTER. By comparing its use with its end; by assuring ourselves that\nthis use is not prejudicial to the practice of justice, that it does not\ndetract from the right of any of our faculties; that is, that it disturbs\nneither our individual harmony nor that of others; for it is on these\nconditions alone that it can co\u00f6perate in the realization of the social\nideal.\n\nMOTHER. Very well. Now apply this general doctrine to human love, my\nchildren.\n\nSON. Since love is one of the forms of attraction, and since the general\nend of attraction is the production, progress and preservation of beings\nand species, it is evident that human love should possess these\ncharacteristics. Its principal function appears to me to be the\nreproduction of the species.\n\nDAUGHTER. It seems to me, brother, that this is not enough; since true\nhusbands and wives do not cease to love each other after this end has\nbeen fulfilled, and since persons may love without having children.\n\nMOTHER. You are right, my daughter; our faculties being more numerous and\nmore fully developed than those of the animals, our love cannot be\nincomplete like theirs; it cannot be of the same nature in our\nprogressive species as in those species fatal and unprogressive of\nthemselves. In us, each faculty, properly employed, aids in the\nimprovement of all the rest, wrongly employed, it interrupts our harmony\nand lowers us; it is the same with our love. Or rather this passion is\nthe one that most of all causes us to grow or to decline.\n\nYou know, my children, that humanity advances only by forming itself an\nideal and endeavoring to realize it. Every passion has its ideal, which\nis modified by that of the whole. In the beginning, man, in the animal\nstate, made the end of love the pleasure resulting from the satisfaction\nof a wholly physical want: he cared nothing for the most evident\naim--progeny. A little later, man less gross, loved woman for her beauty\nand fruitfulness; this was the patriarchal age of love. Later still, the\nNorthern races wrought a change in this instinct; love became decomposed,\nas it were; the lover possessed the love of the soul; the woman was loved\nnot only for her beauty, but as the inspirer of lofty deeds; the husband\nwas the possessor of the body alone and the children were the fruit of\nmarriage; this was the chivalrous age of love. Since pacific labor has\nbeen organized and has gained a place in public opinion, love has entered\na new phase; many among the moderns consider it as the initiative of\nlabor. Some regard the attraction of pleasure as playing the chief part\nin industrial production, and leave full liberty to the attraction,\nhowever inconsistent it may be; others preserve the couple, and transform\nwoman into the moving power of action; the love that she inspires excites\nthe efforts of the worker.\n\nThe progress hitherto made by humanity is therefore that love has now\nfor its end the perpetuation of the species, the modification of man by\nwoman, and the production of labor.\n\nIn a higher ideal of Justice, the sexes being equal in rights, love will\nhave a higher end; the spouses will unite on account of conformity of\nprinciples, union of hearts, wedding of intellects, common labor: love\nwill join them to double their strength, to modify them by each other,\nfrom the friction of their hearts will be struck out sentiments which\nneither would have had alone; from the union of their intellects will be\nborn thoughts which neither would have had alone; from the aid that they\nwill lend each other in their common labor will proceed works that\nneither would have accomplished alone, as from the union of their whole\nbeing, will be born new generations more perfect than the preceding\nbecause they will be the product of the greatest possible harmony. It\nwill be only when woman shall take her lawful place that humanity will\nsee love in all its splendor, and that this passion, subversive to-day in\ninequality and incoherence, will become what it should be; one of the\ngreat instruments of Progress.\n\nWe, my children, who are too rational to mistake the means by which\nNature impels us to accomplish her designs for the designs themselves,\nwill take care not to fancy that the end of love is pleasure; on the\nother hand, we have too much respect for equality to imagine that it is\nfor the benefit of one sex alone. We will remain faithful to the ideal of\nour lofty destinies, in defining love as the reciprocal attraction of man\nand woman with the end of perpetuating the species, of improving the\npartners mutually with respect to intellect and feeling, and of advancing\nscience, art and industry by the labor of the pair.\n\n\nIV.\n\nSophists have told you, my son, that all our inclinations are in Nature;\nthat they are good and should be respected.\n\nYou asked them doubtless whether the inclinations to theft, to\nassassination, to violation, to anthropophagy, which are in Nature, are\ngood, and why, instead of respecting them, society punishes their\nmanifestation.\n\nYou demonstrated to them, I hope, that there is nothing commendable in\nthe exaggeration or the perversion of instincts.\n\nYou demonstrated to them, I hope, that Nature is brutal fatality against\nwhich we are bound to struggle both within and without ourselves; that\nour Justice and virtue are composed only of conquests made over it in us,\nas all that constitutes our physical well-being is only the result of\nconquests made over it outside of us.\n\nThese sophists have told you that love comes and goes without our knowing\nhow or wherefore; and that we can no more command it to spring up than to\nendure.\n\nThis is true, my son, of the brutal desires of the flesh, which is the\npassion of animals alone, and is extinguished by possession.\n\nThis is also true of that complex passion which has its seat in the\nimagination and the senses, and ends with the illusion that is always of\nshort duration.\n\nBut it is not true of genuine love; this sees both the faults and the\nvirtues of the loved one; but softens the first and exalts the last, and\nhopes by degrees to put an end to that which wounds it.\n\nThis sentiment which takes possession of the heart, is patient; it bears\nlest it become effaced, it surrounds itself with precautions in order to\nremain constant; if it becomes extinct, it is not unconsciously: for we\nsuffer cruel tortures before resolving to cease to love.\n\nYou have been told that love is irrepressible; are we then beings of\nfatality? This sophism renders man cowardly and depraves him; for what is\nthe use of struggling against what we know to be unconquerable, and why\nnot sacrifice to it the best of our tendencies? Examine the conduct of\nthe partisans of such a doctrine.\n\nThe human ideal requires that they shall not do to others what they would\nnot think it just that others should do to them; yet they seduce maidens,\nmake them mothers, and abandon them without caring about the children\nborn of these unions; without caring whether the young mother commits\nsuicide, dies of grief, or becomes depraved; without caring whether the\nparents go down to the grave.\n\nLike deadly reptiles, they glide to the domestic fireside of others, rob\ntheir friend of the affection of his wife, and force him to labor for the\nchildren of adultery.\n\nThe woman who believes in irrepressible love breaks her pledges to her\nhusband; lives a life of deceit; brings trouble and sorrow into the\nhouses of other women, whose lives are blighted by her.\n\nIt is in this way that those who practice this sophistry fulfil their\nduty to be just, not to afflict their fellows, to labor for the happiness\nand improvement of those about them, to preserve the weak from oppression\nand wrong. To this pretended irrepressibility of love, they sacrifice\nJustice, goodness, the happiness, repose and honor of others; lead them\ninto the path of dissipation; bring dissolution into the family and\nsociety; in a word, offer up as a sacrifice to animal instinct, moral\nsense and reason.\n\nYou have also been told that every species of love is found in Nature;\nthe polyamic and polygandric, as well as that of the constant pair.\n\nYes, my child, every species of love is found in Nature, as is every\nspecies of vice and every species of virtue. But you know that it is not\nenough that a thing exists within us to prove it to be good; it must be\nin conformity with the ideal of our destiny, with our harmony: it is\nwrong in the opposite case.\n\nLove, such as we have defined it, needs duration and equality; duration,\nbecause we do not become modified in a few months; because we do not\naccomplish great works in a few months; because we do not rear children\nin a few months; duration is so truly an aspiration of love, that it\nimagines that eternity will hardly suffice for it. It must have equality;\ndivision is hateful to it; it will therefore have a unit for a unit, both\nmale and female. Now polygamy and polyandria are the negation of\nequality, of dignity in love.\n\nLet us consider the effects of these two deviations of instinct.\n\nOriental polygamy renders human beings profoundly unequal, transforms\nwomen into cattle, mutilates thousands of men to guard the harems,\ndepraves the possessor of women by despotism and cruelty, concentrates\nall his vitality upon a single instinct at the expense of intellect,\nreason and activity; whence it follows that he is lost to science, art,\nindustry, society according to right: that he submits without repugnance\nto despotism, and passively extends his neck to the halter. There, no\ninfluence is wielded by woman, who is subjected to designed enervation,\nwho is depraved in as hideous a manner as the eunuch, her keeper. Thus,\ninequality in love and in right, abandonment of art, science and\nindustry, intellectual and physical enervation, debasement of the moral\nsense--such are vices inherent to the polygamy of the East. You see that\nthis is far from the ideal of our destinies.\n\nIn our West, polygamy _de facto_ produces the cattle of the brothel,\nlegions of courtesans who ruin families. As many of these women are\ndiseased, they infect those who associate with them with fearful maladies\nwhich undermine their constitutions, and thus pave the way for puny\noffspring, consequently, for weak minds and feeble intellects. I appeal\nfor proof to the conscription; never were so many exemptions seen as now\non account of under size, although the standard has been lowered, never\nwere so many exemptions seen as now for constitutional imperfections and\nacquired disease.\n\nTo vitiate the generation in its germ is not the only crime of our\npolygamy; it enervates those who practice it, for nothing leads to\nexcess, consequently to enervation, so much as the change of relations.\nOn the other hand, our polygamists become transformed into machines of\nsensation; then intellect grows weak; they become stupid and selfish.\nLook at the pitiable young men of the present time, emaciated by their\nvices and by those of their sires; scoffers, faithless, jesting at the\nmost sacred things, despising, not only the corrupt women, their worthy\ncompanions, but also the whole sex to which their mothers belong; look at\nthem; so gross as to sicken the observer, nothing longer commands their\nrespect; they thrust aside gray haired women from the sidewalk into the\ngutter; they are impertinent to old men; they put young girls to the\nblush with their cynical speeches; polygamy has rendered them ignoble,\nand has destroyed our native urbanity as well as all dignity.\n\nThey will tell you that women are but little better than they. But this\nresult becomes inevitable in a country in which women are not kept in\nseclusion. Polyandria becomes the necessary companion of polygamy; for\nsince men consider themselves at liberty to have more than one woman, why\nshould women consider themselves forbidden to have more than one man?\n\nFinally, my son, the results of irrepressible love, Polygamy and\nPolyandria in our Western country are:\n\nThe seduction and corruption of women;\n\nAdultery, debasement of character; the moral and intellectual enfeebling\nof both sexes;\n\nThe enervation and degeneracy of the race;\n\nFalsehood, deceit, cruelty, injustice of every kind, the use of woman by\nman for her beauty, that of man by woman for his money or position;\n\nThe dissolution and ruin of the family;\n\nSeveral thousand illegitimate children annually, without counting\nabortions;\n\nSuch is the value of these theories put in practice.\n\nIs this in conformity with our ideal of human love? Is it in conformity\nwith our ideal of human destiny, which requires that we shall progress\nand cause others to progress in good; that we shall practice Justice and\nGoodness?\n\nA word more, and we have done.\n\nWhen Rome had ceased to believe in chastity, in the sacredness of oaths;\nwhen she wallowed in polygamic and polyandric customs; when she took\npleasure for her end, tyranny appeared. Nothing was more natural: man\nbinds captive those only who have first suffered themselves to be bound\nunder the yoke of bestial instinct: he who knows how to govern himself\ndoes not yield obedience to man; he bows only before the law when it is\nthe expression of Reason.\n\nRemember, my son, that we are powerful only through chastity; only thus\ncan we produce great works in science, art and industry; only thus can we\npractice Justice, be worthy of liberty. Outside of chastity, there is\nnothing but degradation, injustice, impotence, slavery; and every nation\nthat forsakes it falls from the arms of despotism into the grave.\n\nDo not suffer yourself therefore to be moved by modern sophisms, have\nalways before your thoughts your obligations as a moral and a free being,\nyour duties as a member of humanity; subject all that is within you to\nReason, to Justice, to the sentiment of your dignity, and live like a\nman, not like a brute.\n\n\n\n\nMARRIAGE, A DIALOGUE.\n\n\nREADER. We are about to speak of Marriage from the stand point of the\nmodern ideal--how do you define it?\n\nAUTHOR. Love, sanctioned by Society.\n\nREADER. Do you consider Marriage as indissoluble?\n\nAUTHOR. Before the law, I do not; but at the moment of their union, the\nspouses should have full confidence that the bond will never be\ndissolved.\n\nI believe that Marriage becomes indissoluble by the will alone of the\nspouses; that it can be so only in this manner.\n\nREADER. What part do you assign to Society in Marriage?\n\nAUTHOR. You shall fix it yourself after recalling our principles.\n\nIf man and woman are free beings at any period of their life, they cannot\n_legally and validly_ lose their liberty.\n\nIf man and woman are beings socially equal in any of their relations, the\none cannot _legally, validly_ be subordinated to the other.\n\nIf the continual end of the human being is to become perfected through\nliberty, and to seek happiness, no law can legitimately, _validly_ turn\nhim aside from its pursuit.\n\nIf the end of society should be to render individuals _equal_ it cannot,\nunder penalty of forfeiting its mission, constitute inequality of persons\nand of rights.\n\nIf Society cannot without iniquity enter the domain of individual\nliberty, it cannot _lawfully, validly_ prescribe duties that pertain only\nto the jurisdiction of the conscience, and annul moral liberty.\n\nNow draw your conclusions.\n\nREADER. From these principles, it follows that man and woman should\nremain free and equal in Marriage; that Society has no right to intervene\nin their association except to render them equal; that it has no right to\nprescribe to them duties which proceed only from love, nor consequently\nto punish their violation, that it cannot in principle grant or refuse\ndivorce, because it belongs to the husband and wife alone to know whether\nit is useful for their happiness and progress to be separated from each\nother.\n\nAUTHOR. Your conclusions are right, but if Society has no right over the\nbody or the soul of the husband and wife in their capacity of spouses, if\nit cannot without abuse of power interfere in any of their intimate\nrelations, it is its right and duty to intervene in Marriage as regards\ninterests and children.\n\nREADER. In fact, in the union of the sexes, there is not merely an\nassociation of two free and equal persons, but also a partnership of\ncapital and labor; then, from the marriage, children are born for whose\neducation, occupation and subsistence it is necessary to provide.\n\nAUTHOR. Now, the general protection of material interests and of the\nrising generation devolves of right upon Society. In the sight of the\nlaw, the husband and wife ought to be regarded only as partners, engaging\nto employ a certain share of capital, together with their labor, for a\ndefinite purpose. Society takes note only of a contract of interests, the\nexecution of which it guarantees like that of any other contract, and the\nbreach of which it makes public, should it take place by the wish of the\nparties interested. On the other hand, the education of the rising\ngeneration is a question of life and death to Society. The children being\nfree with respect to development, and liable to be useful or injurious to\ntheir fellow citizens according to the training which they have received,\nsociety has a right to watch over them, to secure their material support,\ntheir moral future, to fix the age of marriage, to entrust the children\nto the more deserving parent in case of separation, and if both are\nunworthy, to take them away entirely.\n\nREADER. Do you not go a little too far; on the one hand, do not children\nbelong to their parents, on the other, may not Society err with respect\nto the choice of the principles to be instilled in them?\n\nAUTHOR. Children do not belong to their parents because they are not\nTHINGS: to those who obstinately persist in believing them _property_, we\nsay that Society has the right of dispossession for the public good. Then\nthe social right over children is limited so far as principles are\nconcerned to those of morality. Society has no right over religious\nbeliefs which belong to the domain of spiritual jurisdiction. The power\nthat should take away children from their parents because they were not\nof a certain religious faith would be guilty of despotism, and would\nmerit universal execration. If you say that Society has no right to\nimpose a dogma upon children, you speak truly; but I cannot conceive how\nyou can entertain the thought of forbidding it the right to teach them,\neven against the will of their parents, enlightening science, purifying\nmorality. Is it not the duty of society to secure the progress of its\nmembers, and can any one have a right to keep a human being in ignorance\nand evil?\n\nREADER. You are right, and I condemn myself. Let us return to Marriage. I\nsee with pleasure that you differ in opinion from a number of modern\ninnovators who deny the lawfulness of social interference in the union of\nthe sexes.\n\nAUTHOR. If the union were without protection, who would suffer by it? Not\nmen, but rather women and children.\n\nNo one can compel a man to live with a woman whom he has ceased to love;\nbut he must be constrained to fulfill his duties with respect to the\nchildren born of this union, and to keep his business engagements: in\nwronging his companion and escaping from the burdens of paternity, he\ntakes advantage of his liberty to the detriment of others: Society has a\nright to prevent this.\n\nREADER. So you do not grant to Society the right of binding souls or\nbodies; but that of guaranteeing the contract of Marriage, and the\nobligations of the spouses towards their future children; of forcing\nthem, in case of separation, to fulfill this last obligation?\n\nAUTHOR. Yes; thus in case of the rupture of the marriage tie, society has\nonly to state publicly the responsibilities of the spouses, the number of\nchildren, and the name of the parent on whom their guardianship devolves,\neither by mutual consent or by social authority. And in confining itself\nto this part, Society would do more to prevent the separation of married\ncouples than by all that it has hitherto foolishly invented for the\npurpose. The parties would be free to marry again; but what woman would\nbe willing to unite herself to a man who was burdened with several\nchildren, or who had treated his first companion unkindly? What man would\nconsent to wed a woman in the same position?\n\nDo you not think that the difficulty that would be experienced in\ncontracting a new marriage would be a curb on the inconstancy and bad\nconduct that lead to a rupture?\n\nREADER. I believe indeed that marriage, as you understand it, would have\nmore chances of duration than ours: first, because it is our nature to\ncling most closely to that which we may lose. I have often asked myself\nwhy many men remain faithful to their mistresses and treat them kindly,\nwhile they are disrespectful and unfaithful to their wives; I have asked\nmyself also why many couples who had long lived happily together when\nvoluntarily united, were unhappy and often driven to a legal separation\nwhen they had finally married; and the only reason that I have been able\nto find is that we set the most value on that which we know may escape\nus. Man has more respect for a woman who is not his legal property, his\ninferior, than for her who is thus transformed by the law.\nNotwithstanding, it must be acknowledged that your ideas appear\neccentric.\n\nAUTHOR. Yet they are nothing more than an application of our laws;\nindeed, do they not decree that covenants can have _things_ only, not\n_persons_ for their object. That Society _does not recognize vows_, and\nthat proceedings cannot be instituted against their violation?\n\nNow the existing law of marriage _alienates_ one of the partners in favor\nof the other; the wife _belongs_ to the husband; she is in his _power_.\nWhat is such a contract, if not the violation of the principle which\naffirms that no covenant can be made involving persons? can it be more\nlawful to alienate one's person by a contract of slavery?\n\nSome say that we are at liberty to dispose of our freedom as we choose,\neven though it be to renounce it. Indeed, we may do this, as we may\ncommit suicide, but to make use of our liberty to renounce it or to\ncommit suicide is much less to use aright than to violate the laws of\nmoral or physical nature; these are acts of insanity which we should\npity, but which we are not at liberty to erect into a law.\n\nWhy does Society refuse to recognize vows and to punish their violation,\nif not because it admits that it is forbidden to penetrate into the\njurisdiction of the conscience? if not because it does not admit that an\nindividual may alienate his moral and intellectual being any more than\nhis body, and devote himself to immobility when it is his duty, on the\ncontrary, to go forward?\n\nI ask then if this same Society is not inconsistent in exacting perpetual\nvows from the husband and wife, in exacting from the wife a vow of\nobedience, a tacit vow to deliver up her person to the desires of the\nhusband?\n\nIs not the moral liberty of the spouses as worthy of respect as that of\nnuns, priests and monks?\n\nHave married persons more right in Nature and Reason, to alienate their\nmoral and intellectual being, their liberty and their person than the\ncelibates of the Church?\n\nAnother inconsistency of the law is that it declares Marriage an\nassociation; the contract of Marriage is therefore a contract of\npartnership. Now I ask whether, in a single contract of this kind, it is\nenjoined by law on one of the partners to _obey_, to be subjected to a\n_perpetual minority_, to be _absorbed_?\n\nI doubt not that the law would declare such a contract between\nindependent partners void; why then does it legalize such a monstrosity\nin the partnership of husband and wife? It is a relic of barbarism, as\nyou will see if you reflect on it.\n\nREADER. I hope that, through reason and necessity, the law will be\nreformed sooner or later: but a reformation which will not take place is\nthat of the forms of religious marriage, which prescribe to the spouses\nthe same oaths as the code, and like it, subject the wife to the husband.\n\nAUTHOR. Well, what matters it to us, since, thanks to liberty, the\nreligious marriage is merely a benediction with which we can dispense.\nThose who have a disposition to go to the Church, the Temple, or the\nSynagogue should have full liberty to receive the blessing of their\nrespective priests! this does not concern Society. What we need is that,\nif afterward their vows should not seem to them binding, social authority\nshould not make them obligatory; they have a right to be absurd, but\nsociety has no right to impose absurdity on them. Its duty is, on the\ncontrary, to enlighten them, and to render them free.\n\n\nIV.\n\nREADER. Those who subordinate woman in marriage rest on the assertion\nthat unity of direction, consequently a ruling power, is needed in the\nfamily; now, your theory evidently destroys this ruling power.\n\nAUTHOR. What is the ruling power? Practically, it is manifested through\nthe function of government. Formerly, it was based upon two principles,\nnow recognized as radically false: _Divine right_ and _inequality_. It\nwas the _right_ of those who exercised it to call themselves kings,\nautocrats, priests, men; it was the _duty_ therefore of the people, the\nchurch, woman to obey the elect of God, their superiors by the grace of\nright delegated from on high.\n\nBut in modern opinion, the ruling power is nothing more than a function\ndelegated by the parties interested in order to execute their will.\n\nIt is not our business to inquire here whether this modern interpretation\nhas become incarnated in facts; whether the old principle is not still\nstruggling with the new; whether the holders of political and familial\nauthority are not still making insane pretensions to divine right; we\nhave only to show what the notion of the ruling power has become in the\npresent state of thought and feeling.\n\nWhat will be the ruling power in marriage, in accordance with modern\nopinion, if not the delegation by one spouse to the other of the\nmanagement of business and of the family--a delegation of function; no\nlonger a right?\n\nAnd if man and woman are socially equal in principle, if the aptitudes,\nupon which all functions are based, are not dependent on sex, by what\nright does society interfere to give the authority either to the husband\nor the wife?\n\nIf there is need of a ruling power in the household, are not the parties\nthemselves best capable of bestowing it on the one who can best and most\nusefully exercise it?\n\nBut among partners, is there really room for a ruling power? No, there is\nroom only for division of labor, mutual understanding with respect to\ncommon interests. To consult each other, to come to an agreement, to\ndivide the tasks, to remain master each of his own department; this is\nwhat the spouses should do, and what they do in general.\n\nThe law has so little part in our customs that to-day things happen in\nthis wise: many rich women translate two articles of the Code as follows;\n_the husband shall obey his wife, and shall follow her wherever she sees\nfit to dwell or sojourn_. And the husbands obey, because it would not do\nto offend a wife with a large dowry; because it would make a scandal to\nthwart their wife; because they need her, being unable, without\ndishonoring themselves, to keep a mistress.\n\nHusbands in the great centres of population escape obedience through love\noutside of marriage; they lay no restrictions on their part; Madame is\nfree.\n\nAmong the working classes of the citizens and the people, it is\npractically admitted that neither shall command, and that the husband\nshall do nothing without consulting his wife and obtaining her consent.\n\nIn all classes, if any husband is simple enough to take his pretended\nright in earnest, he is cited as a bad man, an intolerable despot whom\nhis wife may hate and deceive with a safe conscience; and it is a curious\nfact that the greater part of the legal separations are for no other\ncause at the bottom than the exercise of the rights and prerogatives\nconceded to the husbands by law.\n\nI ask you now, what is the use of maintaining against reason and custom,\nan authority which does not exist, or which is transferred to the spouse\ncondemned to subjection.\n\nREADER. On this point, I am wholly of your opinion; not a single woman of\nmodern times takes the rights of her husband in earnest. But your theory\nnot only attacks his authority; it also wages war against the\nindissolubility of marriage, which it is affirmed, is necessary to the\ndignity of this tie; to the happiness and future of the children, to the\nmorality of the family.\n\nAUTHOR. I claim, on the contrary, that my theory secures, as far as is\nhumanly possible, the perpetuity and purity of marriage. At present, when\nthe knot is tied, the spouses, no longer fearing to lose each other, find\nin the absence of this fear the germ of a mutual coolness; they may\nquarrel, be discourteous or unfaithful to each other; there will be\nscandal, a legal separation perhaps, but they are riveted together; they\ncan never become strangers. Contrast with this picture a household in\nwhich the bond is dissoluble; all is changed; the despotic or brutal\nhusband represses his evil propensities, because he knows that his\ncompanion, whom after all he loves, would quit him and transfer to\nanother the attentions she lavishes on him; and that no honest woman\nwould be willing to take her place.\n\nThe husband disposed to be unfaithful would continue in the path of duty,\nbecause his abandonment and offences would alienate his wife, blast his\nreputation, and prevent him from forming an honorable alliance.\n\nThe worn out profligate would no longer espouse the dowry of a young\ngirl, because he would know that, promptly disenchanted, the young wife,\ninstead of having recourse to adultery, would break the ill assorted\nunion.\n\nThe woman who should take advantage of her dowry, of the necessity of her\nhusband to remain faithful, to tyrannise over him, would fear a divorce\nwhich would throw the blame on her and condemn her to a life of solitude.\n\nA shrewish wife would no longer dare to inflict suffering on her husband,\nor a coquette to deceive or torment him; who would marry them after a\nseparation?\n\nDo you not see that free marriages are happier and more lasting than any\nothers?\n\nHave you not yourself admitted that to separate the parties in these\nunions, it often suffices to join them legally?\n\nI know myself of a voluntary union that was very happy during\n_twenty-two_ years, and was dissolved by separation at the end of three\nyears of legal marriage; I have known of many others of a shorter\nduration which legality contributed to dissolve instead of rendering\neternal.\n\nYou would hardly believe how many married couples reformed in their\ntreatment of each other in 1848, when they feared that the law of divorce\nmight be accepted. If the simple expedient of divorce has power to\nproduce good results, what may not be expected from a rational law.\n\nWe need only to reflect in order to comprehend that voluntary\ndissolubility, without social intervention, would render unions better\nassorted, for it would be for one's interest, for his own reputation, to\nenter into them only with the moral conviction of being able to preserve\nthem; then only would no excuse be found for infidelity; loyalty would\nmake part of the relations of the spouses. The law of perpetuity has\nperverted everything, corrupted everything; on the side of the woman, it\nfavors, yes, necessitates stratagem; on the side of the man, it favors\nbrutality and despotism; it provokes on both sides adultery, poisoning\nand assassination; and leads to those separations which are daily\nincreasing in number, and which, by giving the lie to the indissolubility\nof marriage, place the partners in a painful and perilous situation, and\nbring in their train a host of irregularities.\n\nIn fact, if the spouses are separated while young, concubinage is their\nrefuge. The man in this false position finds many to excuse him; but the\nwoman is forced to conceal herself, to tremble at the thought of a\npregnancy and to make it disappear. Legal separation leads the spouses\nnot only to concubinage, to mutual hatred, but causes the birth of\nthousands of children whose future is compromised, destroyed by the fact\nof their illegitimacy. Let the spouses be free in accordance with their\nright, and all will fall into its proper order, for all will be done\nopenly and truly.\n\nREADER. But the future of the children?\n\nAUTHOR. The morality of the children is better insured under the system\nof liberty than under that of indissolubility, for they will not be\nwitnesses for years of the bitter contention and licentiousness which now\nrender them deceitful and vicious, and inspire them with contempt or\nhatred for one of the authors of their being, sometimes of both, when\nthey do not take them for models; if life in common becomes impossible to\nthe parents, which will be more rare under the law of liberty, the\nchildren will not be subjected to the power of those who violate the law\nof received morality; they may see these parents contract a new alliance\n_as now_, but this alliance will be honored by all.\n\nFrom these unions children may be born _as now_, but these children,\ninstead of being cast into the hospital, will share with the first the\naffection and inheritance of their father or mother. The so-styled\nlegitimate children will lose in fortune, it is true; but they will gain\nin good examples; many children who are now in the category of the\nillegitimate will be ranked among the former, and will be no longer\ncondemned by desertion to die young, or else to grovel in ignorance, vice\nand misery; to see their brow branded with the fault of their parents as\nof their own by a host of imbeciles and men without heart, who have no\nother guarantee for what they call their legitimacy than the presumption\naccorded them by the law.\n\n\nIII.\n\nREADER. It will be long yet, perhaps, before collective Reason\ncomprehends liberty in the union of the sexes as you do, and men will\nascribe to themselves the right not only of binding the interests, but\nthe souls and bodies of the spouses.\n\nAUTHOR. As far as we can foresee, Society must necessarily? pass through\ntwo stages to realize our opinion; it must first grant divorce _for a\ndeclared cause_; later it will grant divorce decreed in private on the\npetition of one or both of the spouses. We will not take up this last\nform of the rupture of the conjugal tie, but that which is nearest\nus--divorce for a declared cause.\n\nWhat are the reasons which you would consider valid for a petition for\ndivorce?\n\nREADER. First, those which now give rise to separation from bed and\nboard: adultery of the wife, cruelty, grave abuses, condemnation of one\nof the spouses to punishment affecting the liberty or person, the\nfraudulent management of the property by the husband; next, infidelity of\nthe husband, qualified adultery, incompatibility of temper, notable\nvices, such as drunkenness, gaming, etc.\n\nAUTHOR. Very well; these causes suffice.\n\nREADER. During the proceedings for divorce, the wife should be as free as\nthe husband. The child that should be born to her after more than ten\nmonths' separation should be reputed natural, even though the divorce had\nnot been pronounced; and should bear her name and inherit from her like\none of her legitimate children.\n\nAUTHOR. Who should take custody of the children and the property during\nthe proceedings?\n\nREADER. The court should decide who should have the care of the children,\nin accordance with the causes for the petition for divorce and the\ntestimony of the parents, friends and neighbors.\n\nAUTHOR. But if the spouses ask to be divorced only on account of\nincompatibility of temper, and are both honorable?\n\nREADER. They should be requested to agree mutually either to share the\nchildren, or to entrust them to one of the two, or to give the younger\nchildren to the mother, leaving the sons over fifteen to the father. The\ncourt, besides, should appoint from the family of the mother, a guardian\nto watch over the conduct of the father towards the children left in his\ncare; and from the family of the father, a similar guardian to the mother\nand the children remaining with her. This guardianship, which should be\nstrictly moral, should continue till the children had attained majority.\n\nAUTHOR. And in case the parents should be alike unworthy?\n\nREADER. In such a case, which would seldom happen, the judge, in behalf\nof society, should deprive them of the custody of the children, and\nentrust it to a member of the family of one of the parents, appointing a\nguardian to watch over his conduct and protect the interests of his ward\nfrom the family of the other.\n\nAUTHOR. Very well; I see with pleasure that you are cured of the\nerroneous belief that the children _belong_ to the parents, and that you\ncomprehend the high function of society as the protector of minors.\n\nDuring the suit for divorce, who shall have the control of the property?\n\nREADER. If the contract has been made under the system of separation of\nproperty, and for paraphernalia, there is no need of putting the\nquestion; each one will manage his own.\n\nBut I am somewhat puzzled how to answer you in case of communion of\ngoods, or in case the capital is embarked in a common business, carried\non solely by one of the parties. The present law does not seem to me\nsufficiently to protect the interests of the wife in case of separation.\n\nAUTHOR. Without entangling ourselves in a host of individual cases which\nmodify or contradict each other, let us provide that in case of communion\nof goods, the administration of the property shall be taken from the\nspouse holding it if the petition for divorce be based on his bad\nmanagement, his dissipated habits, or his condemnation to a penalty\naffecting his liberty or person; that in all other cases, he shall make\nan inventory of the property and the condition of the business; and a\nperson shall be appointed from the family of the spouse excluded from the\nmanagement to watch over the conduct of the spouse to whom it is\nentrusted, who shall be bound to pay alimony to the other until the\ndivorce shall be decreed.\n\nREADER. And if there is no fortune?\n\nAUTHOR. Until the spouses become strangers, they owe assistance to each\nother: the court should therefore require the spouse that earns the more\nto aid the other.\n\nREADER. How long a time should elapse between the admission of the\npetition and the judgment of divorce?\n\nAUTHOR. A year, in order that the parties may have time for reflection.\n\nREADER. The divorce being granted, and the ex-partners restored to\nliberty, would you permit them to marry others?\n\nAUTHOR. Most assuredly; else what signifies our arguments against\nseparation?\n\nREADER. What! the adulterous and brutal spouse, he who has inflicted\nsuffering on his partner, who has been wholly in the wrong, should enjoy\nlike the other the privilege of marrying again? I confess that this\nshocks me.\n\nAUTHOR. Because you are not sufficiently imbued with the doctrines of\nliberty and the sentiment of right. Marriage is the natural right of\nevery adult; society has no right therefore to prohibit it or to make it\na privilege; on the other hand, in every divorce, there is wrong or the\nlack of something on either side with respect to the other; the man or\nwoman who commits adultery may be a model of fidelity to a partner\nbetter suited to his or her temperament and disposition; he who has been\nbrutal and violent may be wholly different with a wife possessing a\ndifferent character; in short, we repeat, to prohibit marriage is to\npermit libertinism, and it is not the interest of society to pervert\nitself. Both partners therefore should have a right to marry, but the law\nshould take care that all should be informed of the burdens resting upon\nthem by reason of their first marriage, and know that they are divorced.\nConsequently, society has a right to publish the bill of divorce, and to\nrequire that the parties divorced should provide for the necessities of\ntheir minor children, and that the bill of divorce, joined to the one\nsetting forth this obligation, should accompany the publication of the\nbans of a new marriage; in this, there is neither injustice nor abuse of\npower; for each one will submit to the consequence of what he has done in\nperfect freedom.\n\nREADER. And would you not fix the number of times that a divorced person\nmight re-marry?\n\nAUTHOR. Why fix it? do you fix the number of times that a widow or\nwidower may marry again?\n\nREADER. But a libertine, a bad man might marry ten times, and thus render\nten women unhappy.\n\nAUTHOR. What are you talking of! do you seriously believe that there\nwould be a woman insane enough to marry a man _nine times_ divorced, a\nman obliged to accompany the publication of his bans with nine bills of\ndivorce, with nine judgements compelling him to pay so much yearly for\nthe support of seven, eight or nine children. Do you seriously believe\nthat a woman would consent to become the companion of such a man! This\nman might indeed marry twice--but three times! do you think that it would\nbe possible?\n\nREADER. You are right, and on reflection, the measures which you advocate\nappear perhaps severe.\n\nAUTHOR. I know it; but our aim is not to favor divorces nor subsequent\nunions; but, on the contrary, to prevent the former as far as possible by\nthe difficulties of forming the latter. Now for this it is not necessary\nto restrict the liberty of the individual, but to render him responsible\nfor his acts, and to rivet the chain that he has forged for himself in\nsuch a manner that he can neither cast it aside nor lay the burden of it\non others unless they are duly warned of it and consent thereto.\n\n\nIV.\n\nREADER. Ought society to permit unions disproportioned in age? Is it not\nto expose a woman to adultery, to marry her at seventeen or eighteen to a\nman of thirty, forty or even fifty years of age? What harmony of\nsentiments and views can exist at that time between the spouses? The wife\nsees in her husband a sort of father, whom notwithstanding she can\nneither love nor respect like a father, and she remains a minor all her\nlife.\n\nAUTHOR. These unions are very prejudicial to woman and the race, and they\nwould be for the most part averted, if the law should fix the\nmarriageable age at twenty-four or twenty-five for both sexes. At\nseventeen, we marry to be called Madame, and to wear a bridal dress and a\nwreath of orange flowers; we certainly should not do this at twenty-five.\n\nIf the flower is not called on to form its fruit until it is fully\nmatured, neither should man and woman: now, in our climate the\norganization of neither is complete until twenty-four or twenty-five.\n\nWoman gives more to the great work of reproduction and wears out faster\nin it; to render her liable to become a mother prematurely is therefore\nto expose her to greater sufferings.\n\nIn the first place, she is forced to share between herself and her\noffspring the elements necessary to her own nutrition, which weakens both\nher and the child.\n\nHer development is checked, her constitution is changed, she becomes\npredisposed to uterine affections, and runs the risk of becoming an\ninvalid at the age when she ought to enjoy robust health.\n\nThe enervation of the body brings with it that of the mind: the woman\nbecomes nervous, irritable, and often capricious; she cannot nurse her\nchildren; she will not be capable of rearing them properly, she will make\ndolls of them, and will favor the development of faults which afterwards\nbecoming vices, will afflict the family and society.\n\nThis woman, a mother before her time, not only will never become the\nthoughtful companion and counsellor of her husband who, being much older\nthan she, will amuse himself with her as with a child, but will be his\nward for her whole life, and will have recourse to artifice to have her\nown way. Thus to weaken woman in every respect, to shorten her life, to\nput her under guardianship, to prepare the way for puny and badly reared\noffspring,--such are the most obvious results of her precocious marriage.\n\nTo hold women in voluntary subjection and to organize the harem among us,\nwe need only take advantage of the permission of the law authorising\ntheir marriage at the age of fifteen.\n\nThat woman may not be in subjection; that she may be able to become a\nmother without detriment to her health and under circumstances favorable\nto the good organization of her children; that she may be a worthy and\nearnest wife, prepared to fulfill all her duties, she must not be\nmarried, I repeat, before twenty-four or twenty-five; and she must not\nmarry a man older than herself.\n\nREADER. But it is claimed that the husband ought to be ten years older\nthan the wife, because the latter grows old faster, and because it is\nnecessary that the husband should have had experience in life in order to\nappreciate his wife and to render her happy.\n\nAUTHOR. Errors and prejudices all. Woman grows old sooner than man only\nthrough premature marriage and maternity; a well preserved man and woman\nare alike old at the same age. But the woman consents to grow old while\nthe man is much less willing to do so, since he does not blush when gray\nhaired, to marry a young girl, and to set up the ridiculous pretention of\nbeing loved by her for love. Men must be broken of the habit of believing\nthemselves perpetually at the age of pleasing; of imagining that they are\nquite as agreeable to our eyes when they are old and ugly as if they were\nAdonises. They must be told unceasingly that what is unbecoming in us is\nequally so in them; and that an old woman would be no more ridiculous in\nseeking the love of a young man, than an old man in pretending to that of\na young girl.\n\nThe husband and wife should be nearly of the same age; first, to treat\neach other more easily as equals; next, because there will be more\nharmony in their feelings and views, as well as in their temperaments,\nall things very necessary to the organization of children.\n\nIt is necessary besides, in order that the woman may not be tempted to\ninfidelity; you know how many troubles arise from unions disproportioned\nin age.\n\nThe husband must have _seen life_, it is said; this is the opinion of\nthose who permit their sons to _sow their wild oats_; who believe that\nman is at liberty to wallow in the mire of dens of infamy, and that there\nare two kinds of morality. We do not belong to this class. You would not\ngive your daughter to a man who had _seen life_, because he would be\n_blas\u00e9_, because he would pervert her or expose her, through the\ndisenchantment that would follow, to seek in another what she did not\nfind in her husband.\n\nWhat we have said as regards your daughter applies also to your son; he\nmust not marry a woman younger than himself; for you would no more desire\na disadvantageous position for your daughter-in-law than for your\ndaughter; both are dear to you and worthy of respect before the\nsolidarity of sex.\n\nREADER. I shall educate my son to comprehend that the form of marriage\nprescribed by the Code is merely a relic of barbarism, that his wife owes\nobedience only to Duty, that she is a free being and his equal; and that\nhe has no rights over her person but those which she herself accords to\nhim. I shall tell him that love is a tender plant which must be tended\ncarefully to keep it alive; that it is blighted by unceremoniousness and\nslovenliness; that he should therefore be as careful of his personal\nappearance after marriage as he was to be pleasing to the eyes of his\nbetrothed. I shall say to him: ask nothing except from the love of your\nwife; remember that more than one husband has excited repulsion by the\nbrutality of the wedding night. Marriage, my son, is a grave and holy\nthing; purity is its choicest jewel; know that many men have owed the\nadultery of their wife to the deplorable pains that they have taken to\ndeprave her imagination. Far from using your influence over her who will\nbe the half of yourself in order to render her docile to your wishes, and\nto make her your echo, develop reason and character in her; in elevating\nher, you will become better, and will prepare for yourself a counsel and\nstay. I have married you under the system of separation of goods in order\nthat your wife may be protected against you, should you depart from your\nprinciples; and should you ever grieve me by straying from them, your\nwife will became doubly my daughter. I shall be her companion and\nconsoler, and shall close my arms and my doors on you.\n\nAUTHOR. Right, and you will do well to add: interest your wife in your\noccupation; take care that she is always busy, for labor is the preserver\nof chastity.\n\nREADER. To my daughter I will say: the social order in which we live\nrequires, my child, that you shall superintend your house; the state of\nSociety is still far distant in which our sex will be relieved from this\nfunction. Do not forget that the prosperity of the family depends on the\nspirit of order and economy of the wife. What your fortune or special\nbusiness exempts you from executing, superintend and direct. Extravagance\nof dress and furniture now surpasses all bounds. Luxury is not wrong in\nitself, but in the existing state of things, it is a great relative evil,\nfor we have not yet resolved the problem of increasing and varying\nproducts without at the same time increasing the wretchedness and\ndebasement of their producers. Be simple therefore: this does not exclude\nelegance, but only those piles of silks and laces which trail in the dust\nof the streets, those diamonds and precious stones which make the fortune\nof the few at the expense of the morality of the many, and which are only\ndead capital, the liberation of which would be productive of great good.\nDo not suffer yourself to be ensnared by the sophism that honest women\nmust adorn themselves to hinder men from passing their time with\ncourtesans. Would you not be ashamed to compete in dress with women whom\nyou do not esteem, and would the man who could be retained by such means\nbe worth the trouble?\n\nI have instructed you in your legal position as wife, mother and property\nholder; I marry you under the system of separation of goods in order to\nspare your husband the temptation of regarding himself as your master; in\norder that he may be obliged to take your advice and to look upon you as\nhis partner. Despite these precautions, you will be a minor, since the\nlaw thus decrees. But our law is not Reason: never forget that you are a\nhuman being; that is, a being endowed like your husband with intellect,\nsentiments, free will, and inclination; that you owe submission only to\nReason and your conscience; that if it is your duty to make sacrifices to\nthe peace in little things, and to tolerate the faults of your husband as\nhe should tolerate yours, it is none the less your duty resolutely to\nresist a brutal--_I will have it so_.\n\nYou will be a mother, I hope; nurse your children yourself, rear them in\nthe principles of Right and Duty which I have instilled into your\nintellect and heart, in order to make of them, not only just, good,\nchaste men and women, but laborers in the great work of Progress.\n\nYou understand the great destiny of our species; you understand your\nrights and duties; I need not therefore repeat to you that woman is no\nmore made for man than man for woman; that consequently woman cannot,\nwithout failing in her duty, become lost and absorbed in man; for with\nhim, she should love her children, her country, humanity; she owes more\nto her children than she does to him; and if forced to choose between\nfamily interests and generous sentiments of a higher order woman should\nno more hesitate than should man to sacrifice the former to justice.\n\nAUTHOR. It will be said that you instruct your daughter in a very manly\nway.\n\nREADER. Since in our days men play the mandolin, is it not necessary that\nwomen should speak seriously? Since men, in the name of their na\u00efve\nselfishness, claim the right to confiscate woman to their use, to extol\nto her the charms of the gyneceum, to suppress her rights, and to preach\nto her the sweets of absorption, must not women re-act against these\nsoporific doctrines, and recall their daughters to the sentiment of\ndignity and individuality.\n\nAUTHOR. I endorse you with all my heart!\n\nNow that we are nearly agreed on all points, we have only to sum up what\nwe have said, and to give an outline of the principal reforms necessary\nto be wrought in order that woman my be placed in a position more in\nconformity with Right and Justice.\n\n\n\n\nSUMMARY OF PROPOSED REFORMS.\n\n\nI.\n\nAUTHOR. Identity of right being based on identity of species, and woman\nbeing of the same species as man, what ought she to be before civil\ndignity, in the employment of her activity and in marriage?\n\nREADER. The equal of man.\n\nAUTHOR. How will she become the equal of man in civil dignity?\n\nREADER. When she shall hold a place on the jury and by the side of all\ncivil functionaries; shall be a member of boards of trade and mercantile\nassociations; and shall be a witness in all cases in which the testimony\nof man is required.\n\nAUTHOR. Why ought the testimony of woman to be admitted in all cases in\nwhich that of man is required?\n\nREADER. Because woman is as credible as man; because she is, like him, a\ncivil personage.\n\nAUTHOR. Why ought woman to have a place on the jury?\n\nREADER. Because the Code declaring her the equal of man as regards\nculpability, misdemeanor, crime and punishment, she is thus declared\ncapable like him of comprehending wrong in others;\n\nBecause the jury being a guarantee for the male culprit, the female\nculprit should have a similar guarantee;\n\nBecause if the _male_ criminal is better comprehended by men, the\n_female_ criminal will be better comprehended by women;\n\nBecause society in its aggregate being offended by the crime, it is\nnecessary that this society, composed of two sexes, should be represented\nby both to judge and to condemn it. Because, lastly, where the moral\nsense is concerned, the feminine element is the more necessary inasmuch\nas men claim that our sex is in general more moral and more merciful than\ntheir own.\n\nAUTHOR. Why ought woman to hold a place among civil functionaries?\n\nREADER. Because society, represented by these functionaries, is composed\nof two sexes;\n\nBecause even now in a number of public functions, there is a department\nmore especially belonging to woman;\n\nBecause, in the ceremony of the marriage celebration for instance, if\nwoman does not appear as magistrate, not only is society insufficiently\nrepresented, but the wife may regard herself as delivered up to the power\nof a man by all the men of the country.\n\nAUTHOR. Why ought woman to have her place in boards of trade and\nmercantile associations?\n\nREADER. Because she shares equally in industrial production;\n\nBecause she shares equally in commerce;\n\nBecause she understands business transactions and contracts as well if\nnot better than man;\n\nBecause, in all questions of interests, she should be her own\nrepresentative.\n\nAUTHOR. When will woman become the equal of man in the employment of her\nactivity and of her other faculties?\n\nREADER. When she shall have colleges, academies and schools for special\ninstruction, and when all vocations shall be accessible to her.\n\nAUTHOR. Why ought women to receive the same national education as men?\n\nREADER. Because they exercise a vast influence over the ideas, sentiments\nand conduct of men, and because it is for the interest of society that\nthis influence should be salutary;\n\nBecause it is for the interest of all to enlarge the views and elevate\nthe sentiments of women, in order that they may use their natural\nascendency for the advancement of progress, of truth, of good, of moral\nbeauty;\n\nBecause woman has a right, like man, to cultivate her intellect, and to\nacquire the knowledge bestowed by the state;\n\nBecause, lastly, as she pays her part of the expenses of national\neducation, it is robbery to prohibit her from participating in it.\n\nAUTHOR. Why ought woman to be admitted to academies and professional\nschools?\n\nREADER. Because Society, not having a right to deny the existence of any\naptitude among its members, has consequently no right to prevent those\nwho claim to possess them from cultivating them, nor to lock up from them\nthe treasures of science and practice which are at its disposal.\n\nBecause there are women who are born chemists, physicians,\nmathematicians, etc., and because these women have a right to find in\nsocial institutions the same resources as man for the cultivation of\ntheir aptitudes;\n\nBecause there are professions practised by women who need the instruction\nthat is interdicted them.\n\nAUTHOR. Why ought every field of occupation to be accessible to woman?\n\nREADER. Because woman is a free being, whose vocation no one has a right\nto contest or to restrict;\n\nBecause she, no more than man, will enter vocations forbidden her by\ntemperament, lack of aptitude or want of time; and it is therefore quite\nas unnecessary to interdict them to her as to those men who are unfit to\nenter them.\n\nAUTHOR. Do you not even interdict to her those vocations in which\nstrength is needed, or which are attended with danger?\n\nREADER. Women are not forbidden to be carpenters or tilers, yet they do\nnot become such, because their nature opposes it; it is precisely because\nnature does oppose it, that I think society unreasonable in meddling with\nthe nature. There is no need to prohibit what is impossible; and if what\nhas been declared impossible is done, it is because it is possible: now\nsociety has no right to prohibit what is possible to any of its members;\nthis appears even absurd where vocation is in question.\n\nAUTHOR. Let each one follow his private occupation at his own risk and\nperil, then; but are there not certain public functions which are not\nsuitable for women?\n\nREADER. No one knows this, since they are not open for her admission;\nand, were it so, the prohibition would be useless: competition would show\nthe falsity of ill-founded pretentions.\n\nAUTHOR. When will woman become the equal of man in marriage?\n\nREADER. When the person of the wife is not pledged in marriage; when the\nengagements are reciprocal, and when the wife is not treated as a minor\nand absorbed in the husband. And this should be so:\n\nBecause it is not allowable to alienate one's personality, such an\nalienation, being _immoral_ and _void_ of itself;\n\nBecause the wife being a distinct individual, cannot be actually absorbed\nby the husband, and a law is absurd when it rests on a fiction and\nsupposes an impossibility;\n\nBecause, in fine, woman, being the equal of man before Society, cannot,\nunder any pretext, lose this equality by reason of a closer association\nwith him.\n\nAUTHOR. There are two questions in marriage, aside from that of the\nperson--property and children. Do you not think that the married woman\nought, like the unmarried woman who has attained majority, to be mistress\nof her property, to be free to exercise any profession that suits her,\nand to be at liberty to sell, to buy, to give, to receive, and to\ninstitute suits at law?\n\nREADER. The married man having all these rights, it is evident that the\nmarried woman ought to have them under the law of equality. Are you not\nof the same opinion?\n\nAUTHOR. In all partnerships, we pledge a portion of our liberty on\ncertain points agreed upon. Now the husband and wife are partners; they\ncannot therefore be as perfectly free with respect to each other as\nthough they were strangers; but it is necessary, we repeat, that their\nposition should be the same and their pledges mutual. If the wife can\nneither sell, nor alienate, nor give, nor receive, nor appear in court\nwithout the consent of the husband, it is not allowable for the husband\nto do these things without the consent of the wife; if the wife is not\npermitted to practise a profession without the consent of the husband,\nthe husband is not at liberty to do so without the consent of the wife;\nif the wife cannot pledge the common property without authority from the\nhusband, the husband cannot pledge it without the consent of the wife. I\ngo further; I would not willingly permit the wife, before the age of\ntwenty-five, to give her husband authority to alienate anything belonging\nto one of the two; the husband has too much influence over her for her to\nbe really free before this age.\n\nREADER. But what if one of the parties through caprice or evil motives is\nunwilling that the other should do something that is proper and\nadvantageous?\n\nAUTHOR. Arbiters are frequently chosen in the differences that arise\nbetween partners in business; society, represented by the judicial power,\nis the general arbiter between the husband and wife; still we think that\nit would be well to establish between them a perpetual arbiter, holding\nthe first degree of jurisdiction: this might be the family council,\norganized differently from the present. Before this confidential\ntribunal, better fitted than any other to understand the case, the\nhusband and wife should carry, not only the differences arising between\nthem concerning questions of interests, but those relating to the\neducation, profession and marriage of the children. This tribunal should\ngive the first judgment, and much scandal would be avoided by its\ndecisions, from which besides one could always appeal to the social\ncourt.\n\nI need not add that the right of the father and the mother over the\nchildren is absolutely equal, and that, if the right of either could be\ncontested, it would not be that of the mother, who alone can say, I\n_know_, I am _certain_ that these children are mine.\n\nREADER. In fact, it is odious that the plenitude of right should be found\non the side of the mere legal presumption, the act of faith, uncertainty.\n\nRegarding marriage as a partnership of equals, do you not think that it\nwould be well to mark this equality and the distinction of personalities\nin the name borne by the spouses and their children?\n\nAUTHOR. Certainly, on the day of marriage each of the spouses should join\nhis partner's name to his own; this is done already in certain cantons of\nSwitzerland, and even in France, among a few individuals.\n\nThe children should bear the double name of their parents until marriage,\nwhen the daughters should keep the mother's name, and the sons the\nfather's; or else, if we wish to bring into the question the system of\nliberty, it might be decreed that, on attaining majority, the child\nhimself should choose which of the two names he would bear and transmit.\n\n\nII.\n\nREADER. Now, let us take up the political right.\n\nAUTHOR. A nation is an association of free and equal individuals,\nco-operating, by their labor and contributions, to the maintenance of the\ncommon work; they have an incontestible right to do whatever is necessary\nto protect their persons, their rights and their property from injury.\nMan has political rights because he is free and the equal of his\nco-partners; according to others, because he is a producer and a\ntax-payer; now, woman being, through identity of species, free and the\nequal of man; being in point of fact, a producer and a tax-payer; and\nhaving the same general instincts as man, it is evident that she has the\nsame political rights as he. Such are the principles, let us proceed to\nthe application.\n\nWe have said elsewhere, that it is not enough that a thing should be true\nin an absolute sense; it is necessary under penalty of transforming good\ninto evil, to take into account the surroundings into which we seek to\nintroduce it; this men too often forget, the _practical_ truth in our\nquestion is that it is profitable to recognize political rights _only to\nthe extent to which it is demanded_, because those who do not demand it\nare intellectually incapable of making use of it, and because if they\nshould exercise it, in a majority of cases, it would be against their own\ninterests; Prudence exacts that we should be sure that the possessor of a\nright is really emancipated, and that he will not be the blind tool of a\nman or a party.\n\nNow, in the existing state of affairs, women not only do not demand their\npolitical rights, but laugh at those who address them on the subject;\nthey pride themselves on being thought unfit for that which regards\ngeneral interests; they recognize themselves therefore as incapable.\n\nOn the other hand, they are minors civilly, slaves of prejudice, deprived\nof general education, submissive for the most part to the influence of\ntheir husbands, lovers or confessors, clinging as a majority to the ways\nof the past. If therefore they should enter without preparation into\npolitical life, they would either duplicate men or cause humanity to\nretrograde.\n\nYou comprehend now why many women who are more capable than an infinite\nnumber of men of co\u00f6perating in great political acts, choose rather to\nrenounce them than to compromise the cause of progress by the extension\nof political right to all women.\n\nREADER. Personally, I am of your opinion; but it is necessary to foresee\nand to refute the objections that may be made to you by very intelligent\nwomen; these women will say, Reflect, the negation of right is\niniquitous, for it is the negation of equality and of human nature. It is\nas false as dangerous to lay down the principle of the recognition of\nright only to the extent in which it is claimed; for it is notorious that\nslaves are not the ones in general to demand their own rights; your\naffirmation therefore condemns the emancipation of slaves and serfs, and\nuniversal suffrage.\n\nThe objection that you raise against the right on account of the\nincapacity of women and the low use which they would make of it, might\napply quite as well to men who are scarcely more fully emancipated than\nthey; who are often the duplicate of their wife or confessor, or who have\nno other opinion than that of their electoral committee.\n\nIn right, as in everything else, an apprenticeship is necessary: woman\nwill make use of it at first badly, then better, then well; for we learn\nto play on an instrument much more quickly by using it than by learning\nits theory.\n\nThe exercise of right gives elevation and dignity, elevates the\nindividual in his own esteem, and causes him to study questions which he\nwould have neglected had he not been obliged to examine them in order to\nconcur in and resolve them. Do you wish women to take to heart matters of\ngeneral interest? Then give them political right.\n\nThese objections, may be raised against you.\n\nAUTHOR. They were raised against me in 1848 by a number of eminent women,\nand by many men devoted to the triumph of the new principles.\n\nI answered them then and I answer them again to-day: We should speedily\nagree, if our modern society were not the scene of conflict between two\ndiametrically opposite principles.\n\nThe question is not to decide whether political right belongs to woman,\nwhether she would develop it, enlarge it, etc., but rather whether she\nwould use it to ensure the triumph of the principle that says to\nhumanity, Advance! or of that which gives as the word of command,\nRetreat!\n\nWhat is the end of political right? Evidently, to accomplish a great duty\nin the direction of progress. Well, is it not dangerous to accord it to\nthose who would employ it against this end?\n\nWhat! you struggle for right, in order to obtain the triumph of a holy\ncause, yet feel no hesitation in according it to those who would\ncertainly make use of right to kill right!\n\nYou reproach me for acting like the Jesuits, who value justice much less\nthan expediency. Well, gentlemen, if you had had half their ability, you\nwould have been successful long ago. Like true savages, you would think\nyourselves dishonored by possessing prudence and practical sense, by\noffering yourselves to battle otherwise than with naked bodies; this may\nbe very fine, very courageous--but as to being sensible, that is another\nthing.\n\nI am not guilty of the crime of denying right, since I do not deny it; I\nonly desire that it shall not be demanded since this would be suicidal, I\ndo not lay down the principle that _every kind_ of right should be\nrecognized only to the extent in which it is claimed, since I speak to\nyou of political rights alone; there are rights which make their own\ndemand, such as those of living, of development, of enjoyment, of the\nfruit of one's labor, and it is shameful for society not to recognize\nthem to their full extent. But we awaken later to the sentiment of civil\nright, and still later to that of political right; take the logical\nadvance of humanity into account therefore and do not remain in the\nabsolute.\n\nI know that my objection on the score of the incapacity of women is quite\nas applicable to that of men; but is it a reason, because you have\nadmitted the right of the ignorant masses of men who had not demanded it,\nto show yourselves equally unwise with respect to women who are in the\nsame position? I will correct myself, gentlemen, of what you term my\n_aristocratic_ spirit, when I see your political freedmen comprehending\nthe tendencies of civilization, and making use of their right to drive\nthe abettors of the past to despair by promoting the triumph of liberty\nand equality. Until then, permit me to keep my opinion.\n\nAnd I have kept my opinion, which is this: the exercise of political\nright is a means of reform and progress, only if those who enjoy it\nbelieve in progress and are anxious for reforms: in the opposite case,\nthe popular vote can be nothing but the expression of prejudices, errors\nand passions--instead of learning to exercise it through the use of it,\nas it is urged, they employ it simply to cut their own fingers.\n\nREADER. May it not be objected that, in accordance with your theory of\nright, all being equal, no one can arrogate to himself the function of\ndistributing rights?\n\nAUTHOR. Theory is the ideal towards which practice should tend; if we had\nnot this ideal, we could not know by what principle to guide ourselves;\nbut in social _reality_, there are individuals who have attained\nmajority, and others who, being minors, are destined to attain it.\n\nIf I should assert that those who have attained majority can rightfully\naccord or refuse right to the minors, I should depart essentially from my\nprinciples; it is by the _law_, which is the expression of the conscience\nof those most advanced, while waiting till it shall be the conscience of\nall, that political majority is decreed and that its conditions are\nestablished. The right is virtual in each of us; no one therefore has the\nright to give it, to take it away, or to contest it; it is recognized\nwhen we are in a condition to exercise and to demand it; and we prove\nthat we are in a condition to exercise it when we satisfy the conditions\nfixed by the law.\n\nREADER. What should be these conditions for the enjoyment of political\nright, in your opinion?\n\nAUTHOR. Twenty-five years of age; and a certificate attesting that the\nindividual knows how to read, write and reckon, that he possesses an\nelementary knowledge of the history and geography of his country;\ntogether with a correct theory with respect to Right and Duty, and the\ndestiny of humanity upon earth. The knowledge of a small volume would be\nsufficient, as you see, to enable every man and woman, twenty-five years\nof age and healthy in mind, to enjoy political rights, after having been\nsubjected to an initiation by the enjoyment of civil rights. But, I ask\nyou, what could those do with political right who confound liberty with\nlicense, who scarcely know the meaning of the words Right and Duty, and\nwho are even incapable of writing their own vote! Men have their rights,\nlet them keep them! a right once admitted cannot be taken away: let them\nrender themselves fit to exercise them. As to women, let them first\nemancipate themselves civilly and become educated: their turn will come.\n\nREADER. It is very important that men should comprehend that you do not\ndeny, but merely postpone the political rights of our sex.\n\nAUTHOR. Be easy; they will comprehend it rightly; they will not mistake\ncounsel dictated by prudence for an acknowledgement of inferiority and a\nresignation of functions.\n\n\nIII.\n\nREADER. Will you now state the legal reforms which we should demand\nsuccessively.\n\nAUTHOR. So far as civil life is concerned, we should ask:\n\nThat a woman who is a foreigner may be able to become naturalized in a\ncountry otherwise than by marriage.\n\nThat woman shall not lose her nationality by the same sacrament.\n\nThat woman be admitted to sign, as a witness, all certificates of social\ncondition, with all others that have been hitherto interdicted to her.\n\nYou know that already, in derogation of the law, midwives sign\ncertificates of birth of unacknowledged natural children, and that, in\ncertain notarial documents, drawn up by justices of the peace, to attest\nto a fact in the absence of written evidence, the testimony of women is\nadmitted.\n\nWe demand that tradeswomen and merchant women shall form a part of the\nboards of trade; that in every criminal trial, women shall be placed on\nthe jury: that to women shall be entrusted the management and\nsuperintendence of hospitals, prisons for women, and charitable\nassociations.\n\nThat in every district, a woman shall be appointed to superintend girls'\nschools, infant asylums, and nurses.\n\nYou know that women are already filling public employments in derogation\nof the law, since the teaching and inspection of girls' schools, and\nother asylums, are entrusted to them, and since women keep post-offices,\nstamp offices, etc.\n\nREADER. This regards civil Right in general; what reforms shall we demand\nconcerning married women?\n\nAUTHOR. That the conjugal abode shall be that which is inhabited by the\nhusband and wife _together_, no longer by the man alone.\n\nThat the articles shall be suppressed which command the wife to obey her\nhusband, and to follow him wherever he sees fit to reside.\n\nThat the prohibition to sell, mortgage, receive, give, appear in law,\netc., without the consent of the husband or court, shall be extended to\nthe husband as far as to the wife.\n\nThat marriage under the system of separation of goods shall become the\npublic law.\n\nREADER. What reforms do you demand with respect to the family council and\nguardianship?\n\nAUTHOR. We demand that the family council shall be composed of twenty\npersons; ten men and ten women, parents, relatives and friends, chosen by\nthe spouses.\n\nThat the powers of this council, presided over by the justice of the\npeace, shall be so determined that it shall give the first judgment in\ndifferences arising between the spouses as to children, property,\nguardianship, etc.\n\nWe demand that every woman may be qualified to be appointed guardian or\nto watch over the conduct of the guardian towards the ward.\n\nThat the guardianship of the spouse interdicted shall be always confessed\nby the family council.\n\nThat the wife like the husband, may name a definitive guardian and a\ncouncil of guardianship for her surviving spouse.\n\nThat the spouses may name during their lifetime, the father, a male\ninspecting guardian from his family, the mother, a female inspecting\nguardian from hers, that in case of pre-decease, the children may be\nalways under the influence of both sexes.\n\nThat this superior guardianship, in the absence of any expressed desire,\nbelongs of right to a member of the family of the defunct, who must be of\nthe same sex.\n\nThat in case of a second marriage, if the child is maltreated or unhappy,\nthe inspecting guardian, whether male or female, can have it adjudged to\nhim by the family council, without excluding the appeal of the guardian\nto the courts.\n\nThat in case of the death of the father or mother, the guardianship\nbelongs of right to the nearest ancestor, and the inspecting guardianship\nto the nearest ancestor of the other line.\n\nIf there be competition between the two lines, the family councils shall\nchoose the guardian from one family and the inspecting guardian from the\nother, and of opposite sex.\n\nThat the duties of guardianship and inspecting guardianship shall\ncomprehend, not only the material, but also the moral and intellectual\ninterests of the wards.\n\nThat the father who is guardian, shall lose the right of guardianship\nover the children if he re-marries without first having had it continued\nto him by the family council.\n\nThat lastly, the State shall so organize a board of guardianship for\nabandoned children that the boys shall be under the superintendence of\nthe men and the girls under that of the women; this board will form a\ngreat family council.\n\nREADER. I like your system better than that of the law, not only because\nwoman is the equal of man therein, but because wards will be better\nprotected by it; I have known men to cause their wives, over-excited by\ntheir ill treatment, to be placed under interdict, in order to remain\nmasters of their property; on the other hand, you know how many children\nare wronged or made unhappy by the second marriage of their father. A\nstep-mother has full power to inflict suffering on the little\nunfortunates.\n\nBut you have said nothing of the authority of parents over their\nchildren.\n\nAUTHOR. The authority of the parents over the children is the same; the\nexpression, paternal authority, is incomplete; the true phrase would be\n_parental_ authority. On this head, we demand that if there be dissension\nbetween the father and mother with regard to the children, the family\ncouncil shall decide in the first instance.\n\nThat neither the father nor the mother shall have power to shut up the\nchild unless _both are agreed_.\n\nThat the father or the mother acting as guardian shall not have power to\nhave recourse to this measure except with the concurrence of the\ninspecting guardian, or, in case of difference, with the approbation of\nthe family council, always reserving the right of appeal to the court.\n\nThat the marriageable age shall be fixed at twenty-five for both sexes.\n\nREADER. Shall we demand the suppression of separation from bed and board?\n\nAUTHOR. No; but we must demand that _divorce shall be established_.\n\nThat divorce may be obtained for the adultery of one of the parties,\ncruelty, grave abuses, condemnation to punishment affecting the liberty\nor person, notorious vices, incompatibility of temper, mutual consent.\n\nThat, during the suit for separation or for divorce, the guardianship of\nthe children shall be given to the most deserving parent; and that, if\nboth are alike unworthy, a guardian and inspecting guardian of different\nsexes shall be appointed.\n\nThat, if both are deserving, they shall settle it amicably between\nthemselves before the family council.\n\nThat parties married under the dotal system or under that of the\nseparation of goods, shall have control of their own property.\n\nThat if the petition for divorce be on account of the bad management of\nthe common property, the administration shall be taken away from the\nhusband and entrusted to the wife.\n\nThat if the petition be on account of the condemnation of one of the\nparties to punishment affecting the liberty or person, the other shall\nremain administrator.\n\nThat, in all other cases, an inventory shall be made and the spouse best\nfitted to the task be appointed guardian under the surveillance of one or\ntwo members of the family of the other spouse, with the obligation of\nfurnishing estovers to the other.\n\nThat the decree granting the divorce or separation shall bear the number,\nname and age of the children born of the marriage, together with the\nannual sum that each party is bound to furnish for their maintenance and\neducation.\n\nThat this decree shall state to whose custody the children are entrusted,\nwhether by natural consent or by familial or judicial authority.\n\nThat it shall be placarded publicly in the courts, and inserted in the\nleading journals of the vicinity.\n\nThat this instrument shall accompany the publication of the bans of a\nsubsequent marriage, under pain of heavy penalties.\n\nREADER. These measures are severe; if it would be easy to become\ndivorced, it would not be easy to marry afterwards.\n\nAUTHOR. I do not deny it; but it is better to prevent divorce by the\ndifficulty of marrying afterwards, than by placing restrictions upon it;\nin the first case, the difficulty comes from the fetters which the\nindividual has forged for himself; he makes his own destiny; in the\nsecond, individual liberty is infringed upon by social authority, which\nis an abuse of power.\n\nREADER. Let us enter upon the legal reforms concerning morals.\n\nAUTHOR. We demand that every promise of marriage which is not fulfilled\nshall be punished with a fine and damages.\n\nThat every man whom an unmarried mother can prove by witnesses or\nletters, to be the father of her child, shall be subject to the burdens\nof paternity.\n\nThat the investigation of paternity shall be authorized like that of\nmaternity.\n\nThat the seduction of an unmarried woman under twenty-five shall be\nseverely punished.\n\nThat no unmarried woman can be registered among the public women before\ntwenty-five years old, and that she shall be put into the house of\ncorrection if she abandons herself to prostitution before this age.\n\nThat every abandoned woman who receives a man under twenty-five years of\nage shall be punished with fine and imprisonment, and that the penalty\nshall be terrible if she is diseased.\n\nREADER. It will be said that paternity cannot be proved.\n\nAUTHOR. I do not deny that it may be possible that the father attributed\nto the natural child will not be the true one; but it will be necessary\nto establish by proofs that he has rendered himself liable to be reputed\nsuch: it is the probability of paternity in marriage extended to\npaternity out of marriage. So much the worse for men who suffer\nthemselves to be caught! it is shameful to attach impunity to the most\ndisorderly and subversive of selfish desires; women must no longer bear\nalone the burden of natural children, and no longer be tempted to abandon\nthem.\n\nREADER. But what if it be proved that a married man has rendered himself\nliable to become a father outside his household.\n\nAUTHOR. This should be first a case of divorce; next, of punishment for\nhim and his accomplice. As to the child, the man should bear the charge\nof it in concert with the mother.\n\nREADER. These are indeed Draconian laws!\n\nAUTHOR. Do you not see that corruption is shutting us in, body and soul;\nand that if we do not create a vigorous reaction against it by the\nseverity of the laws, the reform of education, and the awakening of the\nideal, our society will be, ere long, only an immense brothel?\n\nREADER. Alas! it is but too true.\n\nAUTHOR. Let us demand then, not only a rational reform of the national\neducation, but also that the number of lyceums shall be doubled for\ngirls.\n\nThat all the institutions of higher instruction dependent on the state\nshall be open to them as to boys.\n\nThat they shall be admitted to receive the same university degrees, and\nthe same diplomas of capacity as men.\n\nThat every field of occupation shall be opened to them as to men;\n\nSo that, elevated in public opinion by equality, their activity shall no\nlonger be nominally compensated; that they may live by their labor, and\nthat want, discouragement and suicide may no longer terminate their life\nwhen they do not make choice of the sad part of elements of\ndemoralization.\n\n\n\n\nI.\n\nAPPEAL TO WOMEN.\n\n\nProgressive women, to you, I address my last words, Listen in the name of\nthe general good, in the name of your sons and your daughters.\n\nYou say: the manners of our time are corrupt; the laws concerning our sex\nneed reform.\n\nIt is true; but do you think that to verify the evil suffices to cure it?\n\nYou say: so long as woman shall be a minor in the city, the state and\nmarriage, she will be so in social labor; she will be forced to be\nsupported by man; that is to debase him while humbling herself.\n\nIt is true; but do you believe that to verify these things suffices to\nremedy our abasement?\n\nYou say: the education that both sexes receive is deplorable in view of\nthe destiny of humanity.\n\nIt is true; but do you believe that to affirm this suffices to improve,\nto transform the method of education?\n\nWill words, complaints and protestations have power to change any of\nthese things?\n\nIt is not to lament over them that is needed; it is to act.\n\nIt is not merely to demand justice and reform that is needed; it is to\nlabor ourselves for reform; it is to prove _by our works_ that we are\nworthy to obtain justice; it is to take possession resolutely of the\ncontested place; it is, in a word, to have intellect, courage and\nactivity.\n\nUpon whom then will you have a right to count, if you abandon yourselves?\n\nUpon men? Your carelessness and silence have in part discouraged those\nwho maintained your right; it is much if they defend you against those\nwho, to oppress you, call to their aid every species of ignorance, every\nspecies of despotism, every selfish passion, all the paradoxes which they\ndespise when their own sex is in question.\n\nYou are insulted, you are outraged, you are denied or you are blamed in\norder that you may be reduced to subjection, and it is much if your\nindignation is roused thereby!\n\nWhen will you be ashamed of the part to which you are condemned?\n\nWhen will you respond to the appeal that generous and intelligent men\nhave made to you?\n\nWhen will you cease to be masculine photographs, and resolve to complete\nthe revolution of humanity by finally making the word of woman heard in\nReligion, in Justice, in Politics and in Science?\n\nWhat are we to do, you say?\n\nWhat are you to do, ladies? Well! what is done by women believing. Look\nat those who have given their soul to a dogma; they form organizations,\nteach, write, act on their surroundings and on the rising generation in\norder to secure the triumph of the faith that has the support of their\nconscience. Why do not you do as much as they?\n\nYour rivals write books stamped with supernaturalism and individualistic\nmorality, why do you not write those that bear the stamp of rationalism,\nof solidary morality and of a holy faith in Progress?\n\nYour rivals found educational institutions and train up professors in\norder to gain over the new generation to their dogmas and their\npractices, why do not you do as much for the benefit of the new ideas?\n\nYour rivals organize industrial associations, why do not you imitate\nthem?\n\nWould not what is lawful to them be so to you.\n\nCould a government which professes to revive the principles of '89, and\nwhich is the offspring of Revolutionary right, entertain the thought of\nfettering the direct heirs of the principles laid down by '89, while\nleaving those free to act who are more or less their enemies? Can any one\nof you admit such a possibility?\n\nWhat are we to do?\n\nYou are to establish a journal to maintain your claims.\n\nYou are to appoint an encyclopedic committee to draw up a series of\ntreatises on the principal branches of human knowledge for the\nenlightenment of women and the people.\n\nYou are to found a Polytechnic Institute for women.\n\nYou are to aid your sisters of the laboring classes to organize\nthemselves in trades associations on economical principles more equitable\nthan those of the present time.\n\nYou are to facilitate the return to virtue of the lost women who ask you\nfor aid and counsel.\n\nYou are to labor with all your might for the reform of educational\nmethods.\n\nYet, in the face of a task so complicated, you ask: what are we to do?\n\nAh, ye women who have attained majority, arise, if ye have heart and\ncourage!\n\nArise, and let those among you who are the most intelligent, the most\ninstructed, and who have the most time and liberty constitute an\n_Apostleship of women_.\n\nAround this Apostleship, let all the women of Progress be ranged, that\neach one may serve the common cause according to her means.\n\nAnd remember, remember above all things, that _Union is strength_.\n\n\nTHE END.\n\n\n\n\nNEW BOOKS\n\nAnd New Editions Recently Issued by CARLETON, PUBLISHER, NEW YORK.\n\n_418 BROADWAY, CORNER OF LISPENARD STREET._\n\nN.B.--THE PUBLISHER, upon receipt of the price in advance, will send any\nof the following Books, by mail, POSTAGE FREE, to any part of the United\nStates. This convenient and very safe mode may be adopted when the\nneighboring Booksellers are not supplied with the desired work. State\nname and address in full.\n\n\nVictor Hugo.\n\n  LES MISERABLES.--The only unabridged English translation of \"the\n  grandest and best Novel ever written.\" One large octavo vol.,\n  paper covers, $1.00,                                     or cloth $1.50\n\n  LES MISERABLES.--A superior edition of the same Novel, in five\n  octavo vols.--\"Fantine,\" \"Cosette,\" \"Marius,\" \"St. Denis,\" and\n  \"Valjean.\"                                      Cloth, each vol., $1.00\n\n  THE LIFE OF VICTOR HUGO.--(Understood to be an Autobiography.)\n  \"As charming and interesting as a Novel.\" octavo,           cloth $1.50\n\n\nBy the Author of \"Rutledge.\"\n\n  RUTLEDGE.--A deeply interesting novel.               12mo. cloth, $1.50\n  THE SUTHERLANDS.--                                                $1.50\n  FRANK WARRINGTON.--                                               $1.50\n  LOUIE'S LAST TERM AT ST. MARY'S.--                                $1.50\n  A NEW NOVEL.--_In press._\n\n\nHand-Books of Good Society.\n\n   THE HABITS OF GOOD SOCIETY; with Thoughts, Hints, and Anecdotes,\n   concerning nice points of taste, good manners, and the art of\n   making oneself agreeable. Reprinted from the London Edition. The\n   best and most entertaining work of the kind ever published.\n                                                      12mo. cloth, $ 1.50\n\n   THE ART OF CONVERSATION.--With directions for self-culture. A\n   sensible and instructive work, that ought to be in the hands of\n   every one who wishes to be either an agreeable talker or\n   listener.                                          12mo. cloth, $ 1.25\n\n\nMrs. Mary J. Holmes' Works.\n\n    DARKNESS AND DAYLIGHT.--_Just published._   12mo. cl.          $ 1.50\n    'LENA RIVERS.--               A Novel.                         $ 1.50\n    TEMPEST AND SUNSHINE.--                                        $ 1.50\n    MARIAN GREY.--                                                 $ 1.50\n    MEADOW BROOK.--                                                $ 1.50\n    ENGLISH ORPHANS.--                                             $ 1.50\n    DORA DEANE.--                                                  $ 1.50\n    COUSIN MAUDE.--                                                $ 1.50\n    HOMESTEAD ON THE HILLSIDE.--                                   $ 1.50\n\n\nArtemus Ward.\n\n   HIS BOOK.--An irresistibly funny volume of writings by the\n   immortal American humorist and showman; with plenty of comic\n   illustrations.                               12mo. cloth,       $ 1.25\n\n\nMiss Muloch.\n\n   JOHN HALIFAX, Gentleman. A novel.            12mo. cloth,       $ 1.50\n   A LIFE FOR A LIFE.--                                            $ 1.50\n\n\nCharlotte Bronte (Currer Bell).\n\n    JANE EYRE.--A novel.                        12mo. cloth,       $ 1.50\n    SHIRLEY.--                                                     $ 1.50\n    VILLETTE.--                                                    $ 1.50\n\n\nEdmund Kirke.\n\n    AMONG THE PINES.--A thrilling work.         12mo. cloth,\n    MY SOUTHERN FRIENDS.--\n    DOWN IN TENNESSEE.--_Just published._\n\n\nCuthbert Bede.\n\n   VERDANT GREEN.--A rollicking, humorous novel of student life in\n   an English University; with more than 200 comic illustrations.\n                                                12mo. cloth,       $ 1.50\n\nRichard B. Kimball.\n\n   WAS HE SUCCESSFUL?--      A novel.           12mo. cloth,       $ 1.50\n   UNDERCURRENTS.--                                                $ 1.50\n   SAINT LEGER.--                                                  $ 1.50\n   ROMANCE OF STUDENT LIFE.--                                      $ 1.50\n   IN THE TROPICS.--Edited by R. B. Kimball.                       $ 1.50\n\n\nEpes Sargent.\n\n   PECULIAR.--One of the most remarkable and successful novels\n   published in this country.                   12mo. cloth,       $ 1.50\n\n\nMiss Augusta J. Evans.\n\n   BEULAH.--A novel of great power.             12mo. cloth,       $ 1.50\n\n\nA. S. Roe's Works.\n\n   A LONG LOOK AHEAD.--      A novel.           12mo. cloth,       $ 1.50\n   TO LOVE AND TO BE LOVED.--                                      $ 1.50\n   TIME AND TIDE.--                                                $ 1.50\n   I'VE BEEN THINKING.--                                           $ 1.50\n   THE STAR AND THE CLOUD.--                                       $ 1.50\n   TRUE TO THE LAST.--                                             $ 1.50\n   HOW COULD HE HELP IT.--                                         $ 1.50\n   LIKE AND UNLIKE.--                                              $ 1.50\n   A NEW NOVEL.--_In Press._                                       $ 1.50\n\n\nWalter Barrett, Clerk.\n\n   OLD MERCHANTS OF NEW YORK.--Being personal incidents, interesting\n   sketches, bits of biography, and gossipy events in the life of\n   nearly every leading merchant in New York City. Two series.\n                                                12mo. cloth, each, $ 1.50\n\n\nT. S. Arthur's New Works.\n\n   LIGHT ON SHADOWED PATHS.--    A novel.       12mo. cloth,       $ 1.50\n   OUT IN THE WORLD.--_In press._                                  $ 1.50\n   NOTHING BUT GOLD.--                                             $ 1.50\n\n\nThe Orpheus C. Kerr Papers.\n\n   A COLLECTION of exquisitely satirical and humorous military\n   criticisms. Two series.                      12mo. cloth, each, $ 1.25\n\n\nM. Michelet's Works.\n\n   LOVE (L'AMOUR).--From the French.            12mo. cloth,       $ 1.25\n   WOMAN (LA FEMME).--                                             $ 1.25\n   WOMAN MADE FREE.--French of D'Hericourt,                        $ 1.50\n\n\nNovels by Ruffini.\n\n   DR. ANTONIO.--A love story of Italy.         12mo. cloth,       $ 1.50\n   LAVINIA; OR, THE ITALIAN ARTIST.--                              $ 1.50\n   VINCENZO; OR, SUNKEN ROCKS.--                 8vo. cloth,       $ 1.50\n\n\nRev. John Cumming, D.D., of London.\n\n   THE GREAT TRIBULATION.--Two series.          12mo. cloth,       $ 1.25\n   THE GREAT PREPARATION.--                                        $ 1.25\n   THE GREAT CONSUMMATION.--                                       $ 1.25\n   TEACH US TO PRAY.--                                             $ 1.25\n\n\nErnest Renan.\n\n   THE LIFE OF JESUS.--Translated by C. E. Wilbour from the\n   celebrated French work.                      12mo. cloth,       $ 1.50\n\n   RELIGIOUS HISTORY AND CRITICISM.--            8vo. cloth,       $ 2.50\n\n\nCharles Reade.\n\n   THE CLOISTER AND THE HEARTH.--A magnificent new novel, by the\n   author of \"Hard Cash,\" etc.                   8vo. cloth,       $ 1.50\n\n\nThe Opera.\n\n   TALES FROM THE OPERAS.--A collection of clever stories, based\n   upon the plots of all the famous operas.     12mo. cl.,         $ 1.25\n\n\nJ. C. Jeaffreson.\n\n   A BOOK ABOUT DOCTORS.--An exceedingly humorous and entertaining\n   volume of sketches, stories, and facts, about famous physicians\n   and surgeons.                                12mo. cloth,       $ 1.50\n\n\nFred. S. Cozzens.\n\n   THE SPARROWGRASS PAPERS.--A capital humorous work, with\n   illustrations by Darley.                     12mo. cloth,       $ 1.25\n\n\nF. D. Guerrazzi\n\n   BEATRICE CENCI.--A great historical novel. Translated from the\n   Italian; with a portrait of the Cenci, from Guido's famous\n   picture in Rome.                             12mo. cloth,       $ 1.50\n\n\nPrivate Miles O'Reilly.\n\n   HIS BOOK.--Rich with his songs, services, and speeches, and\n   comically illustrated.                       12mo. cloth,       $ 1.25\n\n\nThe New York Central Park.\n\n   A SUPERB GIFT BOOK.--The Central Park pleasantly described, and\n   magnificently embellished with more than 50 exquisite photographs\n   of the principal views and objects of interest. A large quarto\n   volume, sumptuously bound in Turkey morocco,                    $25.00\n\n\nJoseph Rodman Drake.\n\n   THE CULPRIT FAY.--The most charming faery poem in the English\n   language. Beautifully printed.               12mo. cloth,       $ 0.75\n\n\nMother Goose for Grown Folks.\n\n   HUMOROUS RHYMES for grown people; based upon the famous \"Mother\n   Goose Melodies.\"                             12mo. cloth,       $ 1.00\n\n\nStephen Massett.\n\n   DRIFTING ABOUT.--A comic illustrated book of the life and travels\n   of \"Jeems Pipes.\"                            12mo. cloth,       $ 1.25\n\n\nA New Sporting Work.\n\n   THE GAME FISH OF THE NORTH.--One of the best books on fish and\n   fishing ever published. Entertaining as well as instructive, and\n   full of illustrations.                       12mo. cloth,       $ 1.50\n\n\nBalzac's Novels.\n\n   CESAR BIROTTEAU.--From the French.           12mo. cloth,       $ 1.25\n   THE ALCHEMIST.--                                                $ 1.25\n   EUGENIE GRANDET.--                                              $ 1.25\n   PETTY ANNOYANCES OF MARRIED LIFE.--                             $ 1.25\n\n\nThomas Bailey Aldrich.\n\n   BABIE BELL, AND OTHER POEMS.--Blue and gold binding,            $ 1.00\n   OUT OF HIS HEAD.--A new romance.             12mo. cloth,       $ 1.00\n\n\nRichard H. Stoddard.\n\n   THE KING'S BELL.--A new poem.                12mo. cloth,       $ 0.75\n   THE MORGESONS.--A novel. By Mrs. R. H. Stoddard.                $ 1.00\n\n\nEdmund C. Stedman.\n\n   ALICE OF MONMOUTH.--A new poem.              12mo. cloth,       $ 1.00\n   LYRICS AND IDYLS.--                                             $ 0.75\n\n\nM. T. Walworth.\n\n   LULU.--A new novel.                          12mo. cloth,       $ 1.50\n   HOTSPUR.--     _in press_.\n\nAuthor of \"Olie.\"\n\n   NEPENTHE.--A new novel.                      12mo. cloth,       $ 1.50\n   TOGETHER.--   _in press_.\n\n\nQuest.\n\n   A NEW ROMANCE.--_In press._                  12mo. cloth,\n\n\nVictoire.\n\n   A NEW NOVEL.--_In Press._                    12mo. cloth,       $ 1.50\n\n\nRed-Tape.\n\n   AND PIGEON-HOLE GENERALS, as seen by a citizen-soldier\n     in the Army of the Potomac.                12mo. cloth,       $ 1.25\n\n\nAuthor \"Green Mountain Boys.\"\n\n   CENTEOLA.--A new work, _in press_.           12mo. cloth,       $ 1.50\n\n\nC. French Richards.\n\n   JOHN GUILDERSTRING'S SIN.--A novel.          12mo. cloth,\n\n\nJ. R. Beckwith.\n\n   THE WINTHROPS.--A novel, _in press_.         12mo. cloth,       $ 1.50\n\n\nJas. H. Hackett.\n\n   NOTES AND COMMENTS ON SHAKSPEARE.--          12mo. cloth,       $ 1.50\n\n\nMiscellaneous Works.\n\n   ALEXANDER VON HUMBOLDT.--Life and travels.   12mo. cl.,         $ 1.50\n   LIFE OF HUGH MILLER, the Geologist.                             $ 1.50\n   ADAM GUROWSKI.--Diary for 1863.                                 $ 1.25\n   DOESTICKS.--The Elephant Club, illustrated.                     $ 1.50\n   HUSBAND AND WIFE, or human development.                         $ 1.25\n   ROCKFORD.--A novel by Mrs. L. D. Umsted.                        $ 1.00\n   THE PRISONER OF STATE.--By D. A. Mahony.                        $ 1.25\n   THE PARTISAN LEADER.--By Beverly Tucker.                        $ 1.25\n   SPREES AND SPLASHES.--By Henry Morford.                         $ 1.00\n   AROUND THE PYRAMIDS.--By Gen. Aaron Ward.                       $ 1.50\n   CHINA AND THE CHINESE.--By W. L. G. Smith.                      $ 1.00\n   WANDERINGS OF A BEAUTY.--Mrs. Edwin James.                      $ 1.00\n   THE U. S. TAX LAW.--\"Government Edition.\"                       $ 0.75\n   TREATISE ON DEAFNESS.--By Dr. E. B. Lighthill.                  $ 1.00\n   LYRICS OF A DAY.--or newspaper poetry.                          $ 1.00\n   GARRET VAN HORN.--A novel by J. S. Sauzade.                     $ 1.25\n   THE NATIONAL SCHOOL FOR THE SOLDIER.--                          $ 0.50\n   FORT LAFAYETTE.--A novel by Benjamin Wood.                      $ 1.00\n   THE YACHTMAN'S PRIMER.--By T. R. Warren.                        $ 0.50\n   GEN. NATHANIEL LYON.--Life and Writings.                        $ 1.00\n   PHILIP THAXTER.--A novel.                                       $ 1.00\n   LITERARY ESSAYS.--By George Brimley.                            $ 1.50\n   HAYING TIME TO HOPPING.--A novel.                               $ 1.25\n   THE VAGABOND.--Essays by Adam Badeau.                           $ 1.00\n   EDGAR POE AND HIS CRITICS.--By Mrs. Whitman.                    $ 0.75\n   TACTICS; or, Cupid in Shoulder-Straps.                          $ 1.00\n   JOHN DOE AND RICHARD ROE.--A novel.                             $ 1.25\n   LOLA MONTEZ.--Her life and lectures.                            $ 1.50\n   DEBT AND GRACE.--By Rev. C. F. Hudson.                          $ 1.50\n   HUSBAND _vs._ WIFE.--A comic\n     illustrated poem.                                             $ 0.50\n   TRANSITION.--Edited by Rev. H. S. Carpenter.                    $ 1.00\n   ROUMANIA.--By Dr. Jas. O. Noyes, illustrated.                   $ 1.50\n   VERNON GROVE.--A novel.                                         $ 1.25\n   ANSWER TO HUGH MILLER.--By T. A. Davies.                        $ 1.25\n   COSMOGONY.--By Thomas A. Davies.              8vo. cl.,         $ 1.50\n   NATIONAL HYMNS.--By Richard Grant White.                        $ 1.50\n   TWENTY YEARS Around the World.--J. Guy Vassar.                  $ 3.50\n   SPIRIT OF HEBREW POETRY.--By Isaac Taylor.                      $ 2.50","title":"A Woman's Philosophy of Woman; or, Woman affranchised.: An answer to Michelet, Proudhon, Girardin, Legouv\u00e9, Comte, and other modern innovators","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":84972}