This text is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN.



                      A VINDICATION OF THE 
                         RIGHTS OF WOMAN
                               BY
                       MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT


                      AUTHOR'S INTRODUCTION

After considering the historic page, and viewing the living world
with anxious solicitude, the most melancholy emotions of sorrowful
indignation have depressed my spirits, and I have sighed when
obliged to confess that either Nature has made a great difference
between man and man, or that the civilisation which has hitherto
taken place in the world has been very partial. I have turned over
various books written on the subject of education, and patiently
observed the conduct of parents and the management of schools; but
what has been the result?--a profound conviction that the neglected
education of my fellow-creatures is the grand source of the misery
I deplore, and that women, in particular, are rendered weak and
wretched by a variety of concurring causes, originating from one
hasty conclusion. The conduct and manners of women, in fact,
evidently prove that their minds are not in a healthy state; for,
like the flowers which are planted in too rich a soil, strength and
usefulness are sacrificed to beauty; and the flaunting leaves,
after having pleased a fastidious eye, fade, disregarded on the
stalk, long before the season when they ought to have arrived at
maturity. One cause of this barren blooming I attri- bute to a
false system of education, gathered from the books written on this
subject by men who, considering females rather as women than human
creatures, have been more anxious to make them alluring mistresses
than affectionate wives and rational mothers; and the understanding
of the sex has been so bubbled by this specious homage, that the
civilised women of the present century, with a few exceptions, are
only anxious to inspire love, when they ought to cherish a nobler
ambition, and by their abilities and virtues exact respect.

In a treatise, therefore, on female rights and manners, the works
which have been particularly written for their improve- ment must
not be overlooked, especially when it is asserted, in direct terms,
that the minds of women are enfeebled by false refinement; that the
books of instruction, written by men of genius, have had the same
tendency as more frivolous productions; and that, in the true style
of Mahometanism, they are treated as a kind of subordinate beings,
and not as a part of the human species, when improvable reason is
allowed to be the dignified distinction which raises men above the
brute creation, and puts a natural sceptre in a feeble hand.

Yet, because I am a woman, I would not lead my readers to suppose
that I mean violently to agitate the contested question respecting
the quality or inferiority of the sex; but as the subject lies in
my way, and I cannot pass it over without subjecting the main
tendency of my reasoning to misconstruction, I shall stop a moment
to deliver, in a few words, my opinion. In the government of the
physical world it is observable that the female in point of
strength is, in general, inferior to the male. This is the law of
Nature; and it does not appear to be suspended or abrogated in
favour of woman. A degree of physical superiority cannot,
therefore, be denied, and it is a noble prerogative! But not
content with this natural preeminence, men endeavour to sink us
still lower, merely to render us alluring objects for a moment; and
women, intoxicated by the adoration which men, under the influence
of their senses, pay them, do not seek to obtain a durable interest
in their hearts, or to become the friends of the fellow-creatures
who find amusement in their society.

I am aware of an obvious inference. From every quarter have I heard
exclamations against masculine women, but where are they to be
found? If by this appellation men mean to inveigh against, their
ardour in hunting, shooting, and gaming, I shall most cordially
join in the cry; but if it be against the imitation of manly
virtues, or, more properly speaking, the attainment of those
talents and virtues, the exercise of which ennobles the human
character, and which raises females in the scale of animal being,
when they are comprehensively termed mankind, all those who view
them with a philosophic eye must, I should think, wish with me,
that they may every day grow more and more masculine.

This discussion naturally divides the subject. I shall first
consider women in the gland light of human creatures, who in common
with men, are placed on this earth to unfold their faculties; and
afterwards I shall more particularly point out their peculiar
designation.

I wish also to steer clear of an error which many respectable
writers have fallen into; for the instruction which has hitherto
been addressed to women, has rather been applicable to ladies, if
the little indirect advice that is scattered through "Sandford and
Merton" be excepted; but, addressing my sex in a firmer tone, I pay
particular attention to those in the middle class, because they
appear to be in the most natural state. Perhaps the seeds of false
refinement, immorality, and vanity, have ever been shed by the
great. Weak, artificial beings, raised above the common wants and
affections of their race, in a premature unnatural manner,
undermine the very foundation of virtue, and spread corruption
through the whole mass of society! As a class of mankind they have
the strongest claim to pity; the education of the rich tends to
render them vain and helpless, and the unfolding mind is not
strengthened by the practice of those duties which dignify the
human character. They only live to amuse themselves, and by the
same law which in Nature invariably produces certain effects, they
soon only afford barren amusement.

But as I purpose taking a separate view of the different ranks of
society, and of the moral character of women in each, this hint is
for the present sufficient; and I have only alluded to the subject
because it appears to me to be the very essence of an introduction
to give a cursory account of the contents of the work it
introduces.

My own sex, I hope, will excuse me, if I treat them like rational
creatures, instead of flattering their fascinating graces, and
viewing them as if they were in a state of perpetual childhood,
unable to stand alone. I earnestly wish to point out in what true
dignity and human happiness consists. I wish to persuade women to
endeavour to acquire strength, both of mind and body, and to
convince them that the soft phrases, susceptibility of heart,
delicacy of sentiment, and refinement of taste, are almost
synonymous with epithets of weakness, and that those beings who are
only the objects of pity, and that kind of love which has been
termed its sister, will soon become objects of contempt.

Dismissing, then, those pretty feminine phrases, which the men
condescendingly use to soften our slavish dependence, and despising
that weak elegancy of mind, exquisite sensibility, and sweet
docility of manners, supposed to be the sexual charac- teristics of
the weaker vessel, I wish to show that elegance is inferior to
virtue, that the first object of laudable ambition is to obtain a
character as a hurnan being, regardless of the distinction of sex,
and that secondary views should be brought to this simple
touchstone.

This is a rough sketch of my plan; and should I express my
conviction with the energetic emotions that I feel whenever I think
of the subject, the dictates of experience and reflection will be
felt by some of my readers. Animated by this important object, I
shall disdain to cull my phrases or polish my style. I aim at being
useful, and sincerity will render me unaffected; for, wishing
rather to persuade by the force of my arguments than dazzle by the
elegance of my language, I shall not waste my time in rounding
periods, or in fabricating the turgid bombast of artificial
feelings, which, coming from the head, never reach the heart. I
shall be employed about things, not words! and, anxious to render
my sex more respectable members of society, I shall try to avoid
that flowery diction which has slided from essays into novels, and
from novels into familiar letters and conversation.

These pretty superlatives, dropping glibly from the tongue, vitiate
the taste, and create a kind of sickly delicacy that tums away from
simple unadorned truth; and a deluge of false sentiments and
overstretched feelings, stifling the natural emotions of the heart,
render the domestic pleasures insipid, that ought to sweeten the
exercise of those severe duties, which educate a rational and
immortal being for a nobler field of action.

The education of women has of late been more attended to than
formerly; yet they are still reckoned a frivolous sex, and
ridiculed or pitied by the writers who endeavour by satire or
instruction to improve them. It is acknowledged that they spend
many of the first years of their lives in acquiring a smattering of
accomplishments; meanwhile strength of body and mind are sacrificed
to libertine notions of beauty, to the desire of establishing
themselves--the only way women can nse in the world--by marriage.
And this desire making mere animals of them, when they marry they
act as such children may be expected to act,--they dress, they
paint, and nickname God's creatures. Surely these weak beings are
only fit for a seraglio! Can they be expected to govern a family
with judgment, or take care of the poor babes whom they bring into
the world?

If, then, it can be fairly deduced from the present conduct of the
sex, from the prevalent fondness for pleasure which takes place of
ambition and those nobler passions that open and enlarge the soul,
that the instruction which women have hitherto received has only
tended, with the constituion of civil society, to render them
insignificant objects of desire -- mere propagators of fools! --
if it can be proved that in aiming to accomplish them, without
cultivating their understandings, they are taken out of their
sphere of duties, and made ridiculous and useless when the
short-lived bloom of beauty is over,[1] I presume that rational men
will excuse me for endeavouring to persuade them to become more
masculine and respectable.

Indeed the word masculine is only a bugbear; there is little reason
to fear that women will acquire too much courage or fortitude, for
their apparent inferiority with respect to bodily strength must
render them in some degree dependent on men in the various
relations of life; but why should it be increased by prejudices
that give a sex to virtue, and confound simple truths with sensual
reveries?

Women are, in fact, so much degraded by mistaken notions of female
excellence, that I do not mean to add a paradox when I assert that
this artificial weakness produces a propensity to tyrannise, and
gives birth to cunning, the natural opponent of strength, which
leads them to play off those contemptible infantine airs that
undermine esteem even whilst they excite desire. Let men become
more chaste and modest, and if women do not grow wiser in the same
ratio, it will be clear that they have weaker understandings. It
seems scarcely necessary to say that I now speak of the sex in
general. Many individuals have more sense than their male
relatives; and, as nothing preponderates where there is a constant
struggle for an equilibrium without it has naturally more gravity,
some women govern their husbands without degrading themselves,
because intellect will always govern. 

                             NOTES

[1] A lively writer (I cannot recollect his name) asks what
business women turned of forty have to do in the world?


                           **********


                               TO

                     M. TALLEYRAND-PERIGORD
                      Late Bishop of Autun


SIR,--Having read with great pleasure a pamphlet which you have
lately published, I dedicate this volume to you--the first
dedication that I have ever written, to induce you to read it with
attention; and, because I think that you will understand me, which
I do not suppose many pert witlings will, who may ridicule the
arguments they are unable to answer. But, sir I carry my respect
for your understanding still farther; so far that I am confident
you will not throw my work aside, and hastily conclude that I am in
the wrong, because you did not view the subject in the same light
yourself. And, pardon my frankness, but I must observe, that you
treated it in too cursory a manner, contented to consider it as it
had been considered formerly, when the rights of man, not to advert
to woman, were trampled on as chimerical--I call upon you,
therefore, now to weigh what I have advanced respecting the rights
of woman and national education; and I call with the firm tone of
humanity, for my arguments, sir, are dictated by a disinterested
spirit--I plead for my sex, not for myself. Independence I have
long considered as the grand blessing of life, the basis of every
virtue; and independence I will ever secure by contracting my
wants, though I were to live on a barren heath.

It is then an affection for the whole human race that makes my pen
dart rapidly along to support what I believe to be the cause of
virtue; and the same motive leads me earnestly to wish to see woman
placed in a station in which she would advance, instead of
retarding, the progress of those glorious principles that give a
substance to morality. My opinion, indeed, respecting the rights
and duties of woman seems to flow so naturally from these simple
principles, that I think it scarcely possible but that some of the
enlarged minds who formed your admirable constitution will coincide
with me.

In France there is undoubtedly a more general diffusion of
knowledge than in any part of the European world, and I attribute
it, in a great measure, to the social intercourse which has long
subsisted between the sexes. It is true--I utter my sentiments with
freedom--that in France the very essence of sensuality has been
extracted to regale the voluptuary, and a kind of sentimental lust
has prevailed, which, together with the system of duplicity that
the whole tenor of their political and civil government taught,
have given a sinister sort of sagacity to the French character,
properly termed finesse, from which naturally flow a polish of
manners that injures the substance by hunting sincerity out of
society. And modesty, the fairest garb of virtue! has been
more-grossly insulted in France than even in England, till their
women have treated as prudish that attention to decency which
brutes instinctively observe.

Manners and morals are so nearly allied that they have often been
confounded; but, though the former should only be the natural
reflection of the latter, yet, when various causes have produced
factitious and corrupt manners, which are very early caught,
morality becomes an empty name. The personal reserve, and sacred
respect for cleanliness and delicacy in domestic life, which French
women almost despise, are the graceful pillars of modesty; but, far
from despising them, if the pure flame of patriotism have reached
their bosoms, they should labour to improve the morals of their
fellow-citizens, by teaching men, not only to respect modesty in
women, but to acquire it themselves, as the only way to merit their
esteem.

Contending for the rights of woman, my main argument is built on
this simple principle, that if she be not prepared by education to
become the companion of man, she will stop the progress of
knowledge and virtue; for truth must be common to all, or it will
be inefficacious with respect to its influence on general practice.
And how can woman be expected to co-operate unless she knows why
she ought to be virtuous? unless freedom strengthens her reason
till she comprehends her duty, and see in what manner it is
connected with her real good. If children are to be educated to
understand the true principle of patriotism, their mother must be
a patriot; and the love of mankind, from which an orderly train of
virtues spring, can only be produced by considering the moral and
civil interest of mankind; but the education and situation of woman
at present shuts her out from such investigations.

In this work I have produced many arguments, which to me were
conclusive, to prove that the prevailing notion respecting a sexual
character was subversive of morality, and I have contended, that to
render the human body and mind more perfect, chastity must more
universally prevail, and that chastity will never be respected in
the male world till the person of a woman is not, as it were,
idolised, when little virtue or sense embellish it with the grand
traces of mental beauty, or the interesting simplicity of

affection.



Consider, sir, dispassionately these observations, for a glimpse of

this truth seemed to open before you when you observed, "that to

see one-half of the human race excluded by the other from all

participation of government was a political phenomenon that,

according to abstract principles, it was impossible to explain." If

so, on what does your constitution rest? If the abstract rights of

man will bear discussion and explanation, those of woman, by a

parity of reasoning, will not shrink from the same test; though a

different opinion prevails in this country, built on the very

arguments which you use to justify the oppression of

woman--prescription.



Consider--I address you as a legislator--whether, when men contend

for their freedom, and to be allowed to judge for themselves

respecting their own happiness, it be not inconsistent and unjust

to subjugate women, even though you firmly believe that you are

acting in the manner best calculated to promote their happiness ?

Who made man the exclusive judge, if woman partake with him of the

gift of reason?



In this style argue tyrants of every denomination, from the weak

king to the weak father of a family; they are all eager to crush

reason, yet always assert that they usurp its throne only to be

useful. Do you not act a similar part when you force all women, by

denying them civil and political rights, to remain immured in their

families groping in the dark? for surely, sir, you will not assert

that a duty can be binding which is not founded on reason? If,

indeed, this be their destination, arguments may be drawn from

reason; and thus augustly supported, the more understanding women

acquire, the more they will be attached to their

duty--comprehending it--for unless they comprehend it, unless their

morals be fixed on the same immutable principle as those of man, no

authority can make them discharge it in a virtuous manner. They may

be convenient slaves, but slavery will have its constant effect,

degrading the master and the abject dependent.



But if women are to be excluded, without having a voice, from ù

participation of the natural rights of mankind, prove first, to

ward off the charge of injustice and inconsistency, that they want

reason, else this flaw in your NEW CONSTITUTION will ever show that

man must, in some shape, act like a tyrant, and tyranny, in

whatever part of society it rears its brazen front, will ever

undermine morality.



I have repeatedly asserted, and produced what appeared to me

irrefragable arguments drawn from matters of fact to prove my

assertion, that women cannot by force be confined to domestic

concerns; for they will, however ignorant, inter- meddle with more

weighty affairs, neglecting private duties only to disturb, by

cunning tricks, the orderly plans of reason which rise above their

comprehension.



Besides, whilst they are only made to acquire personal

accomplishments, men will seek for pleasure in variety, and

faithless husbands will make faithless wives; such ignorant beings,

indeed, will be very excusable when, not taught to respect public

good, nor allowed any civil rights, they attempt to do themselves

justice by retaliation.



The box of mischief thus opened in society, what is to preserve

private virtue, the only security of public freedom and universal

happiness?



Let there be then no coercion established in society, and the

common law of gravity prevailing, the sexes will fall into their

proper places. And now that more equitable laws are forming your

citizens, marriage may become more sacred; your young men may

choose wives from motives of affection, and your maidens allow love

to root out vanity.



The father of a family will not then weaken his constitution and

debase his sentiments by visiting the harlot, nor forget, in

obeying the call of appetite, the purpose for which it was

implanted. And the mother will not neglect her children to practise

the arts of coquetry, when sense and modesty secure her the

friendship of her husband.



But, till men become attentive to the duty of a father, it is vain

to expect women to spend that time in their nursery which they, "

wise in their generation," choose to spend at their glass; for this

exertion of cunning is only an instinct of nature to enable them to

obtain indirectly a little of that power of which they are unjustly

denied a share; for, if women are not permitted to enjoy legitimate

rights, they will render both men and themselves vicious to obtain

illicit privileges.



I wish, sir, to set some investigations of this kind afloat in

France; and should they lead to a confirmation of my principles

when your constitution is revised, the Rights of Woman may be

respected, if it be fully proved that reason calls for this

respect, and loudly demands JUSTICE for one-half of the human race.





                                   I am, Sir, 

                                        Yours respectfully,



                                                            M. W. 

                      A VINDICATION OF THE 

                         RIGHTS OF WOMAN

                               BY

                       MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT





                              NOTE



When I began to write this work, I divided it into three parts,

supposing that one volume would contain a full discussion of the

arguments which seemed to me to rise naturally from a few simple

principles; but fresh illustrations occurring as I advanced, I now

present only the first part to the public.



Many subjects, however, which I have cursorily alluded to, call for

particular investigation, especially the laws relative to women,

and the consideration of their peculiar duties. These will furnish

ample matter for a second volume, which in due time will be

published, to elucidate some of the sentiments and complete many of

the sketches begun in the first.





                            CHAPTER I



      THE RIGHTS AND INVOLVED DUTIES OF MANKIND CONSIDERED



In the present state of society it appears necessary to go back to

first principles in search of the most simple truths, and to

dispute with some prevailing prejudice every inch of ground. To

clear my way, I must be allowed to ask some plain questions, and

the answers will probably appear as unequivocal as the axioms on

which reasoning is built; though, when entangled with various

motives of action, they are formally contradicted, either by the

words or conduct of men.



In what does man's pre-eminence over the brute creation consist?

The answer is as clear as that a half is less than the whole, in

Reason.



What acquirement exalts one being above another? Virtue, we

spontaneously reply.



For what purpose were the passions implanted? That man by

struggling with them might attain a degree of knowledge denied to

the brutes, whispers Experience.



Consequently the perfection of our nature and capability of

happiness must be estimated by the degree of reason, virtue, and

knowledge, that distinguish the individual, and direct the laws

which bind society: and that from the exercise of reason, knowledge

and virtue naturally flow, is equally undeniable, if mankind be

viewed collectively.



The rights and duties of man thus simplified, it seems almost

impertinent to attempt to illustrate truths that appear so

incontrovertible; yet such deeply rooted prejudices have clouded

reason, and such spurious qualities have assumed the name of

virtues, that it is necessary to pursue the course of reason as it

has been perplexed and involved in error, by various adventitious

circumstances, comparing the simple axiom with casual deviations.



Men, in general, seem to employ their reason to justify prejudices,

which they have imbibed, they can scarcely trace how, rather than

to root them out. The mind must be strong that resolutely forms its

own principles; for a kind of intellectual cowardice prevails which

makes many men shrink from the task, or only do it by halves. Yet

the imperfect conclusions thus drawn, are frequently very

plausible, because they are built on partial experience, on just,

though narrow, views.



Going back to first principles, vice skulks, with all its native

deformity, from close investigation; but a set of shallow reasoners

are always exclaiming that these arguments prove too much, and that

a measure rotten at the core may be expedient. Thus expediency is

continually contrasted with simple principles, till truth is lost

in a mist of words, virtue, in forms, and knowledge rendered a

sounding nothing, by the specious prejudices that assume its name.



That the society is formed in the wisest manner, whose constitution

is founded on the nature of man, strikes, in the abstract, every

thinking being so forcibly, that it looks like presumption to

endeavour to bring forward proofs; though proof must be brought, or

the strong hold of prescription will never be forced by reason; yet

to urge prescription as an argument to justify the depriving men

(or women) of their natural rights, is one of the absurd sophisms

which daily insult common sense.



The civilisation of the bulk of the people of Europe is very

partial; nay, it may be made a question, whether they have acquired

any virtues in exchange for innocence, equivalent to the misery

produced by the vices that have been plastered over unsightly

ignorance, and the freedom which has been bartered for splendid

slavery. The desire of dazzling by riches, the most certain

pre-eminence that man can obtain, the pleasure of commanding

flattering sycophants, and many other complicated low calculations

of doting self-love, have all contributed to overwhelm the mass of

mankind, and make liberty a convenient handle for mock patriotism.

For whilst rank and titles are held of the utmost importance,

before which Genius "must hide its diminished head," it is, with a

few exceptions, very unfortunate for a nation when a man of

abilities, without rank or property, pushes himself forward to

notice. Alas ! what unheard-of misery have thousands suffered to

purchase a cardinal's hat for an intriguing obscure adventurer, who

longed to be ranked with princes, or lord it over them by seizing

the triple crown!



Such, indeed, has been the wretchedness that has flowed from

hereditary honours, riches, and monarchy, that men of lively

sensibility have almost uttered blasphemy in order to justify the

dispensations of Providence. Man has been held out as independent

of His power who made him, or as a lawless planet darting from its

orbit to steal the celestial fire of reason; and the vengeance of

Heaven, lurking in the subtile flame, like Pandora's pent-up

mischiefs, sufficiently punished his temerity, by introducing evil

into the world.



Impressed by this view of the misery and disorder which pervaded

society, and fatigued with jostling against artificial fools,

Rousseau became enamoured of solitude, and, being at the same time

an optimist, he labours with uncommon eloquence to prove that man

was naturally a solitary animal. Misled by his respect for the

goodness of God, who certainly--for what man of sense and feeling

can doubt it !--gave life only to communicate happiness, he

considers evil as positive, and the work of man; not aware that he

was exalting one at- tribute at the expense of another, equally

necessary to divine perfection.



Reared on a false hypothesis, his arguments in favour of a state of

nature are plausible, but unsound. I say unsound; for to assert

that B state of nature is preferable to civilisation, in all its

possible perfection, is, in other words, to arraign supreme wisdom;

and the paradoxical exclamation, that God has made all things

right, and that error has been introduced by the creature, whom He

formed, knowing what He formed, is as unphilosophical as impious.



When that wise Being who created us and placed us here, saw the

fair idea, He willed, by allowing it to be so, that the passions

should unfold our reason, because He could see that present evil

would produce future good. Could the helpless creature whom He

called from nothing break loose from His providence, and boldly

learn to know good by practising evil, without His permission ? No.

How could that energetic advocate for immortality argue so

inconsistently ? Had mankind remained for ever in the brutal state

of nature, which even his magic pen cannot paint as a state in

which a single virtue took root, it would have been clear, though

not to the sensitive unreflecting wanderer, that man was born to

run the circle of life and death, and adorn God's garden for some

purpose which could not easily be reconciled with His attributes.



But if, to crown the whole, there were to be rational creatures

produced, allowed to rise in excellence by the exercise of powers

implanted for that purpose; if benignity itself thought fit to call

into existence a creature above the brutes,[1] who could think and

improve himself, why should that inestimable gift, for a gift it

was, if man was so created, as to have a capacity to rise above the

state in which sensation produced brutal ease, be called, in direct

terms, a curse? A curse it might be reckoned, if the whole of our

existence were bounded by our continuance in this world; for why

should the gracious fountain of life give us passions, and the

power of reflecting, only to imbitter our days and inspire us with

mistaken notions of dignity? Why should He lead us from love of

ourselves to the sublime emotions which the discovery of His wisdom

and goodness excites, if these feelings were not set in motion to

improve our nature, of which they make a part,[2] and render us

capable of enjoying a more godlike portion of happiness? Firmly

persuaded that no evil exists in the world that God did not design

to take place, I build my belief on the perfection of God. 



Rousseau exerts himself to prove that all was right originally:

a crowd of authors that all is now right: and I, that all will be

right.



But, true to his first position, next to a state of nature,

Rousseau celebrates barbarism, and apostrophising the shade of

Fabricius, he forgets that, in conquering the world, the Romans

never dreamed of establishing their own liberty on a firm basis, or

of extending the reign of virtue. Eager to support his system, he

stigmatises, as vicious, every effort of genius; and, uttering the

apotheosis of savage virtues, he exalts those to demi-gods, who

were scarcely human--the brutal Spartans, who, in defiance of

justice and gratitude, sacrificed, in cold blood, the slaves who

had shown themselves heroes to rescue their oppressors.



Disgusted with artificial manners and virtues, the citizen of

Geneva, instead of properly sifting the subject, threw away the

wheat with the chaff, without waiting to inquire whether the evils

which his ardent soul turned from indignantly, were the consequence

of civilisation or the vestiges of barbarism. He saw vice trampling

on virtue, and the semblance of goodness taking the place of the

reality; he saw talents bent by power to sinister purposes, and

never thought of tracing the gigantic mischief up to arbitrary

power, up to the hereditary distinctions that clash with the mental

superiority that naturally raises a man above his fellows. He did

not perceive that regal power, in a few generations, introduces

idiotism into the noble stem, and holds out baits to render

thousands idle and vicious.



Nothing can set the regal character in a more contemptible point of

view, than the various crimes that have elevated men to the supreme

dignity. Vile intrigues, unnatural crimes, and every vice that

degrades our nature, have been the steps to this distinguished

eminence; yet millions of men have supinely allowed the nerveless

limbs of the posterity of such rapacious prowlers to rest quietly

on their ensanguined thrones.[3]



What but a pestilential vapour can hover over society when its

chief director is only instructed in the invention of crimes, or

the stupid routine of childish ceremonies? Will men never be

wise?--will they never cease to expect corn from tares, and figs

from thistles?



It is impossible for any man, when the most favourable

circumstances concur, to acquire sufficient knowledge and strength

of mind to discharge the duties of a king, entrusted with

uncontrolled power; how then must they be violated when his very

elevation is an insuperable bar to the attainment of either wisdom

or virtue, when all the feelings of a man are stifled by flattery,

and reflection shut out by pleasure! Sure it is madness to make the

fate of thousands depend on the caprice of a weak fellow-creature,

whose very station sinks him necessarily below the meanest of his

subjects ! But one power should not be thrown down to exalt

another--for all power inebriates weak man; and its abuse proves

that the more equality there is established among men, the more

virtue and happiness will reign in society. But this and any

similar maxim deduced from simple reason, raises an outcry--the

Church or the State is in danger, if faith in the wisdom of

antiquity is not implicit; and they who, roused by the sight of

human calamity, dare to attack human authority, are reviled as

despisers of God, and enemies of man. These are bitter calumnies,

yet they reached one of the best of men,[4] whose ashes still

preach

peace, and whose memory demands a respectful pause, when subjects

are discussed that lay so near his heart.



After attacking the sacred majesty of kings, I shall scarcely

excite surprise by adding my firm persuasion that every profession,

in which great subordination of rank constitutes its power, is

highly injurious to morality.



A standing army, for instance, is incompatible with freedom;

because subordination and rigour are the very sinews of military

discipline; and despotism is necessary to give vigour to

enterprises that one will directs. A spirit inspired by romantic

notions of honour, a kind of morality founded on the fashion of the

age, can only be felt by a few officers, whilst the main body must

be moved by command, like the waves of the sea; for the strong wind

of authority pushes the crowd of subalterns forward, they scarcely

know or care why, with headlong fury.



Besides, nothing can be so prejudicial to the morals of the

inhabitants of country towns as the occasional residence of a set

of idle superficial young men, whose only occupation is gallantry,

and whose polished manners render vice more dangerous, by

concealing its deformity under gay ornamental drapery. An air of

fashion, which is but a badge of slavery, and proves that the soul

has not a strong individual character, awes simple country people

into an imitation of the vices, when they cannot catch the slippery

graces, of politeness. Every corps is a chair; of despots, who,

submitting and tyrannising without exercising their reason, become

dead-weights of vice and folly on the community. A man of rank or

fortune, sure of rising by interest, has nothing to do but to

pursue some extravagant freak; whilst the needy gentleman, who is

to rise, as the phrase turns, by his merit, becomes a servile

parasite or vile pander.



Sailors, the naval gentlemen, come under the same description, only

their vices assume a different and a grosser cast. They are more

positively indolent, when not discharging the ceremonials of their

station; whilst the insignificant fluttering of soldiers may be

termed active idleness. More confined to the society of men, the

former acquire a fondness for humour and mischievous tricks; whilst

the latter, mixing frequently with well-bred women, catch a

sentimental cant. But mind is equally out of the question, whether

they indulge the horse- laugh, or polite simper.



May I be allowed to extend the comparison to a profession where

more mind is certainly to be found,--for the clergy have superior

opportunities of improvement, though subordination almost equally

cramps their faculties? The blind submission imposed at college to

forms of belief serves as a novitiate to the curate, who must

obsequiously respect the opinion of his rector or patron, if he

mean to rise in his profession. Perhaps there cannot be a more

forcible contrast than between the servile dependent gait of a poor

curate and the courtly mien of a bishop. And the respect and

contempt they inspire, render the discharge of their separate

functions equally useless.



It is of great importance to observe that the character of every

man is, in some degree, formed by his profession. A man of sense

may only have a cast of countenance that wears off as you trace his

individuality, whilst the weak, common man has scarcely ever any

character, but what belongs to the body; at least, all his opinions

have been so steeped in the vat consecrated by authority, that the

faint spirit which the grape of his own vine yields, cannot be

distinguished.



Society, therefore, as it becomes more enlightened, should be very

careful not to establish bodies of men who must necessarily be made

foolish or vicious by the very constitution of their profession.



In the infancy of society, when men were just emerging out of

barbarism, chiefs and priests, touching the most powerful springs

of savage conduct, hope and fear, must have had unbounded sway. An

aristocracy, of course, is naturally the first form of government.

But, clashing interests soon losing their equipoise, a monarchy and

hierarchy break out of the confusion of ambitious struggles, and

the foundation of both is secured by feudal tenures. This appears

to be the origin of monarchical and priestly power, and the dawn of

civilisation. But such combustible materials cannot long be pent

up; and, getting vent in foreign wars and intestine insurrections,

the people acquire some power in the tumult, which obliges their

rulers to gloss over their oppression with a show of right. Thus,

as wars, agriculture, commerce, and literature, expand the mind,

despots are compelled to make covert corruption hold fast the power

which was formerly snatched by open force.[5] And this baneful

lurking

gangrene is most quickly spread by luxury and superstition, the

sure dregs of ambition. The indolent puppet of a court first

becomes a luxurious monster, or fastidious sensualist, and then

makes the contagion which his unnatural state spread, the

instrument of tyranny.



It is the pestiferous purple which renders the progress of

civilisation a curse, and warps the understanding, till men of

sensibility doubt whether the expansion of intellect produces a

greater portion of happiness or misery. But the nature of the

poison points out the antidote; and had Rousseau mounted one step

higher in his investigation, or could his eye have pierced through

the foggy atmosphere, which he almost disdained to breathe, his

active mind would have darted forward to contemplate the perfection

of man in the establishment of true civilisation, instead of taking

his ferocious flight back to the night of sensual ignorance. 





                              NOTES



[1]  Contrary to the opinion of the anatomists, who argye by

analogy from the formation of the teeth, stomach, and intestines,

Rousseau will not allow a man to be a carniverous animal. And,

carried away from nature by a love of system, he disputes whether

man be a gregarious animal, though the long and helpless state of

infancy seems to point him out as particularly impelled to pair,

the first step towards herding.



[2]  What would you say to a mechanic whom you had desired to make

a watch to point out the hour of the day, if, to show his

ingenuity, he added wheels to make it a repeater, etc., that

perplexed the simple mechanism; should he urge - to excuse himself

- had you not touched a certain spring, you would have known

nothing of the matter, and that he should have amused himself by

making an experiment without doing you any harm, would you not

retort fairly upon him, bu insisting that if he had not added those

needless wheels and springs, the accident could not have happened?



[3]  Could there be a greater insult offered to the rights of man

than the beds of justice in France, when an infant was made the

organ of the detestable Dubois?



[4]  Dr. Price.



[5]  Men of abilities scatter seeds that grow up and have a great

influence on the forming opinion; and when once the public opinion

preponderates, through the exertion of reason, the overthrow of

arbitrary power is not very distant.





                           CHAPTER II



     THE PREVAILING OPINION OF A SEXUAL CHARACTER DISCUSSED



To account for, and excuse the tyranny of man, many ingenious

arguments have been brought forward to prove, that the two sexes,

in the acquirement of virtue, ought to aim at attaining a very

different character; or, to speak explicitly, women are not allowed

to have sufficient strength of mind to acquire what really deserves

the name of virtue. Yet it should seem, allowing them to have

souls, that there is but one  way appointed by Providence to lead

mankind to either virtue or happiness. 



If then women are not a swarm of ephemeron triflers, why should

they be kept in ignorance under the specious name of innocence? Men

complain, and with reason, of the follies and caprices of our sex,

when they do not keenly satirise our headstrong passions and

grovelling vices. Behold, I should answer, the natural effect of

ignorance ! The mind will ever be unstable that has only prejudices

to rest on, and the current will run with destructive fury when

there are no barriers to break its force. Women are told from their

infancy, and taught by the example of their mothers, that a little

knowledge of human weakness, justly termed cunning, softness of

temper, outward obedience, and a scrupulous attention to a puerile

kind of propriety, will obtain for them the protection of man; and

should they be beautiful, everything else is needless, for at least

twenty years of their lives.  



Thus Milton describes our first frail mother; though when he tells

us that women are formed for softness and sweet attractive grace,

I cannot comprehend his meaning, unless, in the true Mahometan

strain, he meant to deprive us of souls, and insinuate that we were

beings only designed by sweet attractive grace, and docile blind

obedience, to gratify the senses of man when he can no longer soar

on the wing of contemplation.  



How grossly do they insult us who thus advise us only to render

ourselves gentle, domestic brutes ! For instance, the winning

softness so warmly and frequently recommended, that governs by

obeying. What childish expressions, and how insignificant is the

being--can it be an immortal one?--who will condescend to govern by

such sinister methods? "Certainly," says Lord Bacon, "man is of kin

to the beasts by his body; and if he be not of kin to God by his

spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature!" Men, indeed, appear to

me to act in a very unphilosophical manner, when they try to secure

the good con- duct of women by attempting to keep them always in a

state of childhood. Rousseau was more consistent when he wished to

stop the progress of reason in both sexes, for if men eat of the

tree of knowledge, women will come in for a taste; but, from the

imperfect cultivation which their understandings now receive, they

only attain a knowledge of evil.  Children, I grant, should be

innocent; but when the epithet is applied to men, or women, it is

but a civil term for weakness. For if it be allowed that women were

destined by Providence to acquire human virtues, and, by the

exercise of their understandings, that stability of character which

is the firmest ground to rest our future hopes upon, they must be

permitted to turn to the fountain of light, and not forced to shape

their course by the twinkling of a mere satellite. Milton, I grant,

was of a very different opinion; for he only bends to the

indefeasible right of beauty, though it would be difficult to

render two passages which I now mean to contrast, consistent. But

into similar inconsistencies are great men often led by their

senses:



          To whom thus Eve with perfect beauty adorn'd 

          My author and disposer, what thou bid'st 

          Unargued I obey; so God ordains. 

          God is thy law thou mine: to know no more

          Is woman's happiest knowledge and her praise.



These are exactly the arguments that I have used to children; but

I have added, your reason is now gaining strength, and, till it

arrives at some degree of maturity, you must look up to me for

advice,--then you ought to think, and only rely on God.  Yet in the

following lines Milton seems to coincide with me, when he makes

Adam thus expostulate with his Maker:



          Hast Thou not made me here Thy substitute,

          And these inferior far beneath me set ? 

          Among equals what society

          Can sort, what harmony or true delight ?

          Which must be mutual, in proportion due

          Given and received; but in disparity

          The one intense, the other still remiss

          Cannot well suit with either, but soon prove

          Tedious alike: of fellowship I speak 

          Such as I seek fit to participate

          All rational delight--



In treating therefore of the manners of women, let us, disregarding

sensual arguments, trace what we should endeavour to make them in

order to co-operate, if the expression be  not too bold, with the

Supreme Being.  By individual education, I mean, for the sense of

the word is not precisely defined, such an attention to a child as

will slowly sharpen the senses, form the temper, regulate the

passions as they begin to ferment, and set the understanding to

work before the body arrives at maturity; so that the man may  only

have to proceed, not to begin, the important task of learning to

think and reason.  



To prevent any misconstruction, I must add, that I do not believe

that a private education can work the wonders which some sanguine

writers have attributed to it. Men and women must be educated, in

a great degree, by the opinions and manners of the society they

live in. In every age there has been a stream of popular opinion

that has carried all before it, and given a family character, as it

were, to the century. It may then fairly be inferred, that, till

society be differently constituted, much cannot be expected from

education. It is, however, sufficient for my present purpose to

assert that, whatever effect circumstances have on the abilities,

every being may become virtuous by the exercise of its own reason;

for if but one being was created with vicious inclinations, that is

positively bad, what can save us from atheism? or if we worship a

God, is not that God a devil? 



Consequently, the most perfect education, in my opinion, is such an

exercise of the understanding as is best calculated to strengthen

the body and form the heart. Or, in other words, to enable the

individual to attain such habits of virtue as  will render it

independent. In fact, it is a farce to call any being virtuous

whose virtues do not result from the exercise of  its own reason.

This was Rousseau's opinion respecting men; I extend it to women,

and confidently assert that they have  been drawn out of their

sphere by false refinement, and not by an endeavour to acquire

masculine qualities. Still the regal homage which they receive is

so intoxicating, that until the manners of the times are changed,

and formed on more reasonable principles, it may be impossible to

convince them that the illegitimate power which they obtain by

degrading themselves is a curse, and that they must return to

nature and equality if they wish to secure the placid satisfaction

that unsophisticated affections impart. But for this epoch we must

wait--wait perhaps till kings and nobles, enlightened by reason,

and, preferring the real dignity of man to childish state, throw

off their gaudy hereditary trappings; and if then women do not

resign the arbitrary power of beauty--they will prove that they

have less mind than man. XXXXX I may be accused of arrogance; still

I must declare what I firmly believe, that all the writers who have

written on the subject of female education and manners, from

Rousseau to Dr. Gregory, have contributed to render women more

artificial, weak characters, than they would otherwise have been;

and consequently, more useless members of society. I might have

expressed this conviction in a lower key, but I am afraid it would

have been the whine of affectation, and not the faithful expression

of my feelings, of the clear result which experience and reflection

have led me to draw. When I come to that division of the subject,

I shall advert to the passages that I more particularly disapprove

of, in the works of the authors I have just alluded to; but it is

first necessary to observe that my objection extends to the whole

purport of those books, which tend, in my opinion, to degrade

one-half of the human species, and render women pleasing at the

expense of every solid virtue.



Though, to reason on Rousseau's ground, if man did attain a degree

of perfection of mind when his body arrived at maturity, it might

be proper, in order to make a man and his wife one, that she should

rely entirely on his understanding; and the graceful ivy, clasping

the oak that supported it, would form a whole in which strength and

beauty would be equally conspicuous. But, alas ! husbands, as well

as their helpmates, are often only overgrown children,--nay, thanks

to early debauchery, scarcely men in their outward form,--and if

the blind lead the blind, one need not come from heaven to tell us

the consequence. 



Many are the causes that, in the present corrupt state of society,

contribute to enslave women by cramping their under- standings and

sharpening their senses. One, perhaps, that silently does more

mischief than all the rest, is their disregard of order. 



To do everything in an orderly manner is a most important precept,

which women, who, generally speaking, receive only a disorderly

kind of education, seldom attend to with that degree of exactness

that men, who from their infancy are broken into method, observe.

This negligent kind of guesswork--for what other epithet can be

used to point out the random exertions of a sort of instinctive

common sense never brought to the test of reason?--prevents their

generalising matters of fact; so they do to-day what they did

yesterday, merely because they did it yesterday.



This contempt of the understanding in early life has more baneful

consequences  than is commonly supposed; for the little knowledge

which women of strong minds attain is, from various circumstances,

of a more desultory kind than the knowledge of men, and it is

acquired more by sheer observations on real life than from

comparing what has been individually observed with the results of

experience generalised by speculation. Led by their dependent

situation and domestic employments more into society, what they

learn is rather by snatches; and as learning is with them in

general only a secondary thing, they do not pursue any one branch

with that persevering ardour necessary to give vigour to the

faculties and clearness to the judgment. In the present state of

society a little learning is required to support the character of

a gentleman, and boys are obliged to submit to a few years of

discipline. But in the education of women, the cultivation of the

understanding is always subordinate to the acquirement of some

corporeal accomplishment. Even when enervated by confinement and

false notions of modesty, the body is prevented from attaining that

grace and beauty which relaxed half-formed limbs never exhibit.

Besides, in youth their faculties are not brought forward by

emulation; and having no serious scientific study, if they have

natural sagacity, it is turned too soon on life and manners. They

dwell on effects and modifications, without tracing them back to

causes; and complicated rules to adjust behaviour are a weak

substitute for simple principles.  



As a proof that education gives this appearance of weakness to

females, we may instance the example of military men, who are, like

them, sent into the world before their minds have been stored with

knowledge, or fortified by principles. The consequences are

similar; soldiers acquire a little superficial knowledge, snatched

from the muddy current of conversation, and from continually mixing

with society, they gain what is termed a knowledge of the world;

and this acquaintance with manners and customs has frequently been

confounded with a knowledge of the human heart. But can the crude

fruit of casual observation, never brought to the test of judgment,

formed by comparing speculation and experience, deserve such a

distinction ? Soldiers, as well as women, practise the minor

virtues with punctilious politeness. Where is then the sexual

difference, when the education has been the same? All the

difference that I can discern arises from the superior advantage of

liberty which enables the former to see more of life. 



It is wandering from my present subject, perhaps, to make a

political remark; but as it was produced naturally by the train of

my reflections, I shall not pass it silently over. 



Standing armies can never consist of resolute robust men; they may

be well-disciplined machines, but they will seldom contain men

under the influence of strong passions, or with very vigorous

faculties; and as for any depth of understanding, I will venture to

affirm that it is as rarely to be found in the army as amongst

women. And the cause, I maintain, is the same. It may be further

observed that officers are also particularly attentive to their

persons, fond of dancing, crowded rooms, adventures, and

ridicule.[1] Like the fair sex, the business of their lives is

gallantry; they were taught to please, and they only live to

please. Yet they do not lose their rank in the distinction of

sexes, for they are still reckoned superior to women, though in

what their superiority consists, beyond what I have just mentioned,

it is difficult to discover.  



The great misfortune is this, that they both acquire manners before

morals, and a knowledge of life before they have from reflection

any acquaintance with the grand ideal outline of human nature. The

consequence is natural. Satisfied with common nature, they become

a prey to prejudices, and taking all their opinions on credit, they

blindly submit to authority. So that if they have any sense, it is

a kind of instinctive glance that catches proportions, and decides

with respect to manners, but fails when arguments are to be pursued

below the surface, or opinions analysed. 



May not the same remark be applied to women? Nay, the argument may

be carried still further, for they are both thrown out of a useful

station by the unnatural distinctions established in civilised

life. Riches and hereditary honours have made cyphers of women to

give consequence to the numerical figure; and idleness has produced

a mixture of gallantry and despotism into society, which leads the

very men who are the slaves of their mistresses to tyrannise over

their sisters, wives, and daughters. This is only keeping them in

rank and file, it is true. Strengthen the female mind by enlarging

it, and there will be an end to blind obedience; but as blind

obedience is ever sought for by power, tyrants and sensualists are

in the right endeavour to keep woman  in the dark, because only

want slaves, and the latter a plaything. The  sensualist, indeed,

has been the most dangerous of tyrants, and women have been duped

by their lovers, as princes by their ministers, whilst dreaming

that they reigned over them.  



I now principally allude to Rousseau, for his character of Sophia

is undoubtedly a captivating one, though it appears to me grossly

unnatural. However, it is not the superstructure, but the

foundation of her character, the principles on which her education

was built, that I mean to attack; nay, warmly as I admire the

genius of that able writer, whose opinions I shall often have

occasion to cite, indignation always takes place of admiration, and

the rigid frown of insulted virtue effaces the smile of complacency

which his eloquent periods are wont to raise when I read his

voluptuous reveries. Is this the man who, in his ardour for virtue,

would banish all the soft arts of peace, and almost carry us back

to Spartan discipline? Is this the man who delights to paint the

useful struggles of passion, the triumphs of good dispositions, and

the heroic flights which carry the glowing soul out of itself? How

are these mighty sentiments lowered when he describes the pretty

foot and enticing airs of his little favourite ! But for the

present I waive the subject, and instead of severely reprehending

the transient effusions of overweening sensibility, I shall only

observe that whoever has cast a benevolent eye on society must

often have been gratified by the sight of humble mutual love not

dignified by sentiment, or strengthened by a union in intellectual

pursuits. The domestic trifles of the day have afforded matters for

cheerful converse, and innocent caresses have softened toils which

did not require great exercise of mind or stretch of thought; yet

has not the sight of this moderate felicity excited more tenderness

than respect ?--an emotion similar to what we feel when children

are playing or animals sporting;[2] whilst the contemplation of the

noble struggles of suffering merit has raised admiration, and

carried our thoughts to that world where sensation will give place

to reason.  



Women are therefore to be considered either as moral beings,  or so

weak that they must be entirely subjected to the superior faculties

of men.



Let us examine this question. Rousseau declares that a woman should

never for a moment feel herself independent, that she should be

governed by fear to exercise her natural cunning, and made a

coquettish slave in order to render her a more alluring object of

desire, a sweeter companion to man, whenever he chooses to relax

himself. He carries the arguments, which he pretends to draw from

the indications of nature, still further, and insinuates that truth

and fortitude, the corner-stones of all human virtue, should be

cultivated with certain restrictions, because, with respect to the

female character, obedience is the grand lesson which ought to be

impressed with unrelenting rigour.



What nonsense ! When will a great man arise with sufficient 

strength of mind to puff away the fumes which pride and sensuality

have thus spread over the subject? If women are by nature inferior

to men, their virtues must be the same in quality, if not in

degree, or virtue is a relative idea; consequently their conduct

should be founded on the same principles, and have the same aim.



Connected with man as daughters, wives, and mothers, their  moral

character may be estimated by their manner of fulfilling those

simple duties; but the end, the grand end, of their exertions

should be to unfold their own faculties, and acquire the dignity of

conscious virtue. They may try to render their road pleasant; but

ought never to forget, in common with man, that life yields not the

felicity which can satisfy an immortal soul. I do not mean to

insinuate that either sex should be so lost in abstract reflections

or distant views as to forget the affections and duties that lie

before them, and are, in truth, the means appointed to produce the

fruit of life; on the contrary, I would warmly recommend them, even

while I assert, that they afford most satisfaction when they are

considered in their true sober light. 



Probably the prevailing opinion that woman was created for man, may

have taken its rise from Moses' poetical story; yet as very few, it

is presumed, who have bestowed any serious thought on the subject

ever supposed that Eve was, literally speaking, one of Adam's ribs,

the deduction must be allowed to fall to the ground, or only be so

far admitted as it proves that man, from the remotest antiquity,

found it convenient to exert his strength to subjugate his

companion, and his invention to show that she ought to have her

neck bent under the yoke, because the whole creation was only

created for his convenience or pleasure.  



Let it not be concluded that I wish to invert the order of things.

I have already granted that, from the constitution of their bodies,

men seemed to be designed by Providence to attain a greater degree

of virtue. I speak collectively of the whole sex; but I see not the

shadow of a reason to conclude that their virtues should differ in

respect to their nature. In fact, how can they, if virtue has only

one eternal standard? I must therefore, if I reason

consequentially, as strenuously maintain that they have the same

simple direction as that there is a God. 



It follows then that cunning should not be opposed to wisdom,

little cares to great exertions, or insipid softness, varnished

over with the name of gentleness, to that fortitude which grand

views alone can inspire.  



I shall be told that woman would then lose many of her peculiar

graces, and the opinion of a well-known poet might be quoted to

refute my unqualified assertion. For Pope has said in the name of

the whole male sex:



          Yet ne'er so sure our passion to create,

          As when she touch'd the brink of all we hate.



In what light this sally places men and women I shall leave to the

judicious to determine. Meanwhile, I shall content myself with

observing, that I cannot discover why, unless they are mortal,

females should always be degraded by being made subservient to love

or lust. 



To speak disrespectfully of love is, I know, high treason against

sentiment and fine feelings; but I wish to speak the simple

language of truth, and rather to address the head than the heart.

To endeavour to reason love out of the world would be to

out-Quixote Cervantes, and equally offend against common sense; but

an endeavour to restrain this tumultuous passion, and to prove that

it should not be allowed to dethrone superior powers, or to usurp

the sceptre which the understanding should very coolly wield,

appears less wild. 



Youth is the season for love in both sexes; but in those days of

thoughtless enjoyment provision should be made for the more

important years of life, when reflection takes place of sensation.

But Rousseau, and most of the male writers who have followed his

steps, have warmly inculcated that the whole tendency of female

education ought to be directed to one point--to render them

pleasing.  



Let me reason with the supporters of this opinion who have any

knowledge of human nature. Do they imagine that marriage can

eradicate the habitude of life? The woman who has only been taught

to please will soon find that her charms are oblique sunbeams, and

that they cannot have much effect on her husband's heart when they

are seen every day, when the summer is passed and gone. Will  she

then have sufficient native energy to look into herself for

comfort, and cultivate her dormant faculties? or is it not more

rational to expect that she will try to please other men, and, in

the emotions raised by the expectation of new conquests, endeavour

to forget the mortification her love or pride has received? When

the husband ceases to be a lover, and the time will inevitably

come, her desire of pleasing will then grow languid, or become a

spring of bitterness; and love, perhaps, the most evanescent of all

passions, gives place to jealousy or vanity. 



I now speak of women who are restrained by principle or prejudice.

Such women, though they would shrink from an intrigue with real

abhorrence, yet, nevertheless, wish to be convinced by the homage

of gallantry that they are cruelly neglected by their husbands; or,

days and weeks are spent in dreaming of the happiness enjoyed by

congenial souls, till their health is undermined and their spirits

broken by discontent. How then can the great art of pleasing be

such a necessary study? it is only useful to a mistress. The chaste

wife and serious mother should only consider her power to please as

the polish of her virtues, and the affection of her husband as one

of the comforts that render her task less difficult, and her life

happier. But, whether she be loved or neglected, her first wish

should be to make herself respectable, and not to rely for all her

happiness on a being subject to like infirmities with herself.  



The worthy Dr. Gregory fell into a similar error. I respect his

heart, but entirely disapprove of his celebrated Legacy to his

Daughters.



He advises them to cultivate a fondness for dress, because a

fondness for dress, he asserts, is natural to them. I am unable to

comprehend what either he or Rousseau mean when they frequently use

this indefinite term. If they told us that in a pre-existent state

the soul was fond of dress, and brought this inclination with it

into a new body, I should listen to them with a half-smile, as I

often do when I hear a rant about innate elegance. But if he only

meant to say that the exercise of the faculties will produce this

fondness, I deny it. It is not natural; but arises, like false

ambition in men, from a love of power.  



Dr. Gregory goes much further; he actually recommends

dissimulation, and advises an innocent girl to give the lie to her

feelings, and not dance with spirit, when gaiety of heart would

make her feet eloquent without making her gestures immodest. In the

name of truth and common sense, why should not one woman

acknowledge that she can take more  exercise than another? or, in

other words, that she has a sound constitution; and why, to damp

innocent vivacity, is she darkly to be told that men will draw

conclusions which she little thinks of? Let the libertine draw what

inference he pleases; but, I hope, that no sensible mother will

restrain the natural frankness of youth by instilling such indecent

cautions. out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh; and

a wiser than Solomon hath said that the heart should be made clean,

and not trivial ceremonies observed, which it is not very difficult

to fulfil with scrupulous exactness when vice reigns in the heart. 



Women ought to endeavour to purify their heart; but can they do so

when their uncultivated understandings make them entirely dependent

on their senses for employment and amusement, when no noble

pursuits set them above the little vanities of the day, or enables

them to curb the wild emotions that agitate a reed, over which

every passing breeze has power? To gain the affections of a

virtuous man, is affectation necessary? Nature has given woman a

weaker frame than man; but, to ensure her husband's affections,

must a wife, who, by the exercise of her mind and body whilst she

was discharging the duties of a daughter, wife, and mother, has

allowed her constitution to retain its natural strength, and her

nerves a healthy tone,--is she, I say, to condescend to use art,

and feign a sickly delicacy, in order to secure her husband's

affection? Weakness may excite tenderness, and gratify the arrogant

pride of man; but the lordly caresses of a protector will not

gratify a noble mind that pants for and deserves to be respected.

Fondness is a poor substitute for friendship! 



In a seraglio, I grant, that all these arts are necessary; the

epicure must have his palate tickled, or he will sink into apathy;

but have women so little ambition as to be satisfied with such a

condition? Can they supinely dream life away in the lap of

pleasure, or the languor of weariness, rather than assert their

claim to pursue reasonable pleasures, and render themselves

conspicuous by practising the virtues which dignify mankind? Surely

she- has not an immortal soul who can loiter life away merely

employed to adorn her person, that she may amuse the languid hours,

and soften the cares of a fellow-creature who is willing to be

enlivened by her smiles and tricks, when the serious business of

life is over. 



Besides, the woman who strengthens her body and exercises her mind

will, by managing her family and practising various virtues, become

the friend, and not the humble dependent of her husband; and if

she, by possessing such substantial qualities, merit his regard,

she will not find it necessary to conceal her affection, nor to

pretend to an unnatural coldness of constitution to excite her

husband's passions. In fact, if we revert to history, we shall find

that the women who have distinguished themselves have neither been

the most beautiful nor the most gentle of their sex.  



Nature, or, to speak with strict propriety, God, has made all

things right; but man has sought him out many inventions to mar the

work. I now allude to that part of Dr. Gregory's treatise, where he

advises a wife never to let her husband know the extent of her

sensibility or affection. Voluptuous precaution, and as ineffectual

as absurd. Love, from its very nature, must be transitory. To seek

for a secret that would render it constant, would be as wild a

search as for the philosopher's stone, or the grand panacea; and

the discovery would be equally useless, or rather pernicious, to

mankind. The most holy  band of society is friendship. It has been

well said, by a shrewd satirist, "that rare as true love is true

friendship is still rarer." 



This is an obvious truth, and, the cause not lying deep, will not

elude a slight glance of inquiry. 



Love, the common passion, in which chance and sensation take place

of choice and reason, is, in some degree, felt by the mass of

mankind; for it is not necessary to speak, at present, of the

emotions that rise above or sink below love. This passion,

naturally increased by suspense and difficulties, draws the mind

out of its accustomed state, and exalts the affections; but the

security of marriage, allowing the fever of love to subside, a

healthy temperature is thought insipid only by those who have not

sufficient intellect to substitute the calm tenderness of

friendship, the confidence of respect, instead of blind admiration,

and the sensual emotions of fondness.  



This is, must be, the course of nature. Friendship or indifference

inevitably succeeds love. And this constitution seems perfectly to

harmonise with the system of government which prevails in the moral

world. Passions are spurs to action, and open the mind; but they

sink into mere appetites, become a personal and momentary

gratification when the object is gained, and the satisfied mind

rests in enjoyment. The man who had some virtue whilst he was

struggling for a crown, often becomes a voluptuous tyrant when it

graces his brow; and, when the lover is not lost in the husband,

the dotard, a prey to childish caprices and fond jealousies,

neglects the serious duties of life, and the caresses which should

excite confidence in his children are lavished on the overgrown

child, his wife.  



In order to fulfil the duties of life, and to be able to pursue

with vigour the various employments which form the moral character,

a master and mistress of a family ought not to continue to love

each other with passion. I mean to say that they ought not to

indulge those emotions which disturb the order of society, and

engross the thoughts that should be otherwise employed. The mind

that has never been engrossed by one object wants vigour,--if it

can long be so, it is weak.  



A mistaken education, a narrow uncultivated mind, and many sexual

prejudices, tend to make women more constant than men; but, for the

present, I shall not .ouch on this branch of the subject. I will go

still further, and advance, without dreaming of a paradox, that an

unhappy marriage is often very advantageous to a family, and that

the neglected wife is, in general, the best mother. And this would

almost always be the consequence if the female mind were more

enlarged; for, it seems to be the common dispensation of

Providence, that what we gain in present enjoyment should be

deducted from the treasure of life, experience; and that when we

are gathering the flowers of the day, and revelling in pleasure,

the solid fruit of toil and wisdom should not be caught at the same

time. The way lies before us, we must turn to the right or left;

and he who will pass life away in bounding from one pleasure to

another, must not complain if he acquire neither wisdom nor

respectability of character.  



Supposing, for a moment, that the soul is not immortal, and that

man was only created for the present scene,--I think we should have

reason to complain that love, infantine fondness, ever grew insipid

and palled upon the sense. Let us eat, drink, and love, for

to-morrow we die, would be, in fact, the language of reason, the

morality of life; and who but a fool would part with a reality for

a fleeting shadow ? But, if awed by observing the improbable powers

of the mind, we disdain to confine our wishes or thoughts to such

a comparatively mean field of action, that only appears grand and

important, as it is connected with a boundless prospect and sublime

hopes, what necessity is there for falsehood in conduct, and why

must the sacred majesty of truth be violated to detain a deceitful

good that saps the very foundation of virtue? Why must the female

mind be tainted by coquettish arts to gratify the sensualist, and

prevent love from subsiding into friendship, or compassionate

tenderness, when there are not qualities on which friendship can be

built? Let the honest heart show itself, and reason teach passion

to submit to necessity; or, let the dignified pursuit of virtue and

knowledge raise the mind above those emotions which rather embitter

than sweeten the cup of life, when they are not restrained within

due bounds.  



I do not mean to allude to the romantic passion, which is the

concomitant of genius. Who can clip its wing? But that grand

passion not proportioned to the puny enjoyments of life, is only

true to the sentiment, and feeds on itself. The passions which have

been celebrated for their durability have always been unfortunate.

They have acquired strength by absence and constitutional

melancholy. The fancy has hovered round a form of beauty dimly

seen; but familiarity might have turned admiration into disgust,

or, at least, into indifference, and allowed the imagination

leisure to start fresh game. With perfect propriety, according to

this view of things, does Rousseau make the mistress of his soul,

Eloisa, love St. Preux, when life was fading before her; but this

is no proof of the immortality of the passion.  



Of the same complexion is Dr. Gregory's advice respecting delicacy

of sentiment, which he advises a woman not to acquire, if she have

determined to marry. This determination, however, perfectly

consistent with his former advice, he calls indelicate, and

earnestly persuades his daughters to conceal it, though it may

govern their conduct, as if it were indelicate to have the common

appetites of human nature. 



Noble morality! and consistent with the cautious prudence of a

little soul that cannot extend its views beyond the present minute

division of existence. If all the faculties of woman's mind are

only to be cultivated as they respect her dependence on man; if,

when a husband be obtained, she have arrived at her goal, and

meanly proud, rests satisfied with such a paltry crown, let her

grovel contentedly, scarcely raised by her employments above the

animal kingdom;  but, if struggling for the prize of her high

calling, she look beyond  the present scene, let her cultivate her

understanding without stopping to consider what character the

husband may have whom she is destined to marry. Let her only

determine, without being too anxious about present happiness, to

acquire the qualities that ennoble a rational being, and a rough

inelegant husband may shock her taste without destroying her peace

of mind. She will not model her soul to  suit the frailties of her

companion, but to bear with them; his character may be a trial, but

not an impediment to virtue.  



If Dr. Gregory confined his remark to romantic.expectations of

constant love and  congenial feelings, he should have recollected

that experience will banish what advice can never make us cease to

wish for, when  the imagination is kept alive at the expense of

reason.  



I own it frequently happens, that women who have fostered a

romantic unnatural delicacy of feeling, waste their [3] lives in

imagining how happy they should have been  with a husband who could

love them with a fervid increasing affection every day, and all

day. But they might as well pine married as single, and would not

be a jot more unhappy with a bad husband than longing for a good

one. That a proper education, or, to speak with more precision, a

well-stored mind, would enable a woman to support a single life 

with dignity, I grant; but that she should avoid cultivating her

taste, lest her husband should occasionally shock it, is quitting

a substance for a shadow. To say the truth, I do not know of what 

use is an improved taste, if the individual be not rendered more

independent of the casualties of life; if new sources of enjoyment,

only dependent on the solitary operations of the mind, are not

opened. People of taste, married or single, without distinction,

will ever be disgusted by various things that touch not less

observing minds. On this conclusion the argument must not be

allowed to hinge; but in the whole sum of enjoyment is taste to be

denominated a blessing? 



The question is, whether it procures most pain or pleasure? The

answer will decide the propriety of Dr. Gregory's advice, and show

how absurd and tyrannic it is thus to lay down a system of slavery,

or to attempt to educate moral beings by any other rules than those

deduced from pure reason, which apply to the whole species. 



Gentleness of manners, forbearance and long-suffering, are such

amiable Godlike qualities, that in sublime poetic strains  the

Deity  has been invested with them; and, perhaps, no representation

of His goodness so strongly fastens on the human affections as

those that represent Him abundant in mercy and willing to pardon.

Gentleness, considered in this point of view, bears on its front

all the characteristics of grandeur, combined with the winning

graces of condescension; but what a different aspect it assumes

when it is the submissive demeanour of dependence, the support of

weakness that loves, because it wants protection; and is

forbearing, because it must silently endure injuries; smiling under

the lash at which it dare not snarl. Abject as this picture

appears, it is the portrait of an accomplished woman, according to

the received opinion of female excellence, separated by specious

reasoners from human excellence. Or, they [4] kindly restore the

rib, and make one moral being of a man and woman; not forgetting to

give her all the "submissive charms."  



How women are to exist in that state where there is neither to be

marrying nor giving in marriage, we are not told. For though

moralists have agreed that the tenor of life seems to prove that

man is prepared by various circumstances for a future state, they

constantly concur in advising woman only to provide for the

present. Gentleness, docility, and a spaniel like affection are, on

this ground, consistently recommended as the cardinal virtues of

the sex; and, disregarding the arbitrary economy of nature, one

writer has declared that it is masculine for a woman to be

melancholy. She was created to be the toy of man, his rattle, and

it must jingle in his ears whenever, dismissing reason, he chooses

to be amused.  



To recommend gentleness, indeed, on a broad basis is strictly

philosophical. A frail being should labour to be gentle. But when

forbearance confounds right and wrong, it ceases to be a virtue;

and, however convenient it may be found in a companion--that

companion will ever be considered as an inferior, and only inspire

a vapid tenderness, which easily degenerates into contempt. Still,

if advice could really make a being gentle, whose natural

disposition admitted not of such a fine polish, something towards

the advancement of order would be attained; but if, as might

quickly be demonstrated, only affectation be produced by this

indiscriminate counsel, which throws a stumbling-block in the way

of gradual improvement, and true melioration of temper, the sex is

not much benefited by sacrificing solid virtues to the attainment

of superficial graces, though for a few years they may procure the

individuals regal sway. 



As a philosopher, I read with indignation the plausible epithets

which men use to soften their insults; and, as a moralist, I ask

what is meant by such heterogeneous associations, as fair defects,

amiable weaknesses, etc. ? If there be but one criterion of morals,

but one architype for man, women appear to be suspended by destiny,

according to the vulgar tale of Mahomet's coffin; they have neither

the unerring instinct of brutes, nor are allowed to fix the eye of

reason on a perfect model. They were made to be loved, and must not

aim at respect, lest they should be hunted out of society as

masculine. 



But to view the subject in another point of view. Do passive

indolent women make the best wives? Confining our discussion to the

present moment of existence, let us see how such weak creatures

perform their part ? Do the women who, by the attainment of a few

superficial accomplishments, have strengthened the prevailing

prejudice, merely contribute to the happiness of their husbands? Do

they display their charms merely to amuse them ? And have women who

have early imbibed notions of passive obedience, sufficient

character to manage a family or educate children? So far from it,

that, after surveying the history of woman, I cannot help agreeing

with the severest satirist, considering the sex as the weakest as

well as the most oppressed half of the species. What does history

disclose but marks of inferiority, and how few women have

emancipated themselves from the galling yoke of sovereign man? So

few that the exceptions remind me of an ingenious conjecture

respecting Newton-- that he was probably a being of superior order

accidentally caged in a human body. Following the same train of

thinking, I have been led to imagine that the few extraordinary

women who have rushed in eccentrical directions out of the orbit

prescribed to their sex, were male spirits, confined by mistake in

female frames. But if it be not philosophical to think of sex when

the soul is mentioned, the inferiority must depend on the organs;

or the heavenly fire, which is to ferment the clay, is not given in

equal portions.



But avoiding, as I have hitherto done, any direct comparison of the

two sexes collectively, or frankly acknowledging the inferiority of

woman, according to the present appearance of things, I shall only

insist that men have increased that inferiority till women are

almost sunk below the standard of rational creatures. Let their

faculties have room to unfold, and their virtues to gain strength,

and then determine where the whole sex must stand in the

intellectual scale. Yet let it be remembered, that for a small

number of distinguished women I do not ask a place.  



It is difficult for us purblind mortals to say to what height human

discoveries and improvements may arrive when the gloom of despotism

subsides, which makes us stumble at every step; but, when morality

shall be settled on a more solid basis, then, without being gifted

with a prophetic spirit, I will venture to predict that woman will

be either the friend or slave of man. We shall not, as at present,

doubt whether she is a moral agent, or the link which unites man

with brutes. But should it then appear that like the brutes they

were principally created for the use of man, he will let them

patiently bite the bridle, and not mock them with empty praise; or,

should their rationality be proved, he will not impede their

improvement merely to gratify his sensual appetites. He will not,

with all the graces of rhetoric, advise them to submit implicitly

their understanding to the guidance of man. He will not, when he

treats of the education of women, assert that they ought never to

have the free use of reason, nor would he recommend cunning and

dissimulation to beings who are acquiring, in like manner as

himself, the virtues of humanity.  



Surely there can be but one rule of right, if morality has an

eternal foundation, and whoever sacrifices virtue, strictly so

called, to present convenience, or whose duty it is to act in such

a manner, lives only for the passing day, and cannot be an

accountable creature.  



The poet then should have dropped his sneer when he says:



          If weak women go astray,  

          The stars are more ill fault than they



For that they are bound by the adamantine chain of destiny is most

certain, if it be proved that they are never to exercise their own

reason, never to be independent, never to rise above opinion, or to

feel the dignity of a rational will that only bows to God, and

often forgets that the universe contains any being but itself and

the model of perfection to which its ardent gaze is turned, to

adore attributes that, softened into virtues, may be imitated in

kind, though the degree overwhelms the enraptured mind. 



If, I say, for I would not impress by declamation when Reason

offers her sober light, if they be really capable of acting like

rational creatures, let them not be treated like slaves; or, like

the brutes who are dependent on the reason of man, when they

associate with him; but cultivate their minds, give them the

salutary sublime curb of principle, and let them attain conscious

dignity by feeling themselves only dependent on God. Teach them, in

common with man, to submit to necessity, instead of giving, to

render them more pleasing, a sex to morals.  



Further, should experience prove that they cannot attain the same

degree of strength of mind, perseverance, and fortitude, let their

virtues be the same in kind, though they may vainly struggle for

the same degree; and the superiority of man will be equally clear,

if not clearer; and truth, as it is a simple principle, which

admits of no modification, would be common to both. Nay the order

of society, as it is at present regulated, would not be inverted,

for woman would then only have the rank that reason assigned her,

and arts could not be practised to bring the balance even, much

less to turn it.  



These may be termed Utopian dreams. Thanks to that Being who

impressed them on my soul, and gave me sufficient strength of mind

to dare to exert my own reason, till, becoming dependent only on

Him for the support of my virtue, I view, with indignation, the

mistaken notions that enslave my sex.  



I love man as my fellow; but his sceptre, real or usurped, extends

not to me, unless the reason of an individual demands my homage;

and even then the submission is to reason, and not to man. In fact,

the conduct of an accountable being must be regulated by the

operations of its own reason; or on what foundation rests the

throne of God?



It appears to me necessary to dwell on these obvious truths,

because females have been insulated, as it were; and while they

have been stripped of the virtues that should clothe humanity, they

have been decked with artificial graces that enable them to

exercise a short-lived tyranny. Love, in their bosoms, taking place

of every nobler passion, their sole ambition is to be fair, to

raise emotion instead of inspiring respect; and this ignoble

desire, like the servility in absolute monarchies, destroys all

strength of character. Liberty is the mother of virtue, and if

women be, by their very constitution, slaves, and not allowed to

breathe the sharp invigorating air of freedom, they must ever

languish like exotics, and be reckoned beautiful flaws in nature. 



As to the argument respecting the subjection in which the sex has

ever been held, it retorts on man. The many have always been

enthralled by the few; and monsters, who scarcely have shown any

discernment of human excellence, have tyrannised over thousands of

their fellow-creatures. Why have men of superior endowments

submitted to such degradation? For, is it not universally

acknowledged that kings, viewed collectively, have ever been

inferior, in abilities and virtue, to the same number of men taken

from the common mass of mankind-- yet have they not, and are they

not still treated with a degree of reverence that is an insult to

reason? China is not the only country where a living man has been

made a God. Men have submitted to superior strength to enjoy with

impunity the pleasure of the moment; women have only done the same,

and therefore till it is proved that the courtier, who servilely

resigns the birthright of a man, is not a moral agent, it cannot be

demonstrated that woman is essentially inferior to man because she

has always been subjugated.  



Brutal force has hitherto governed the world, and that the science

of politics is in its infancy, is evident from philosophers

scrupling to give the knowledge most useful to man that determinate

distinction.  



I shall not pursue this argument any further than to establish an

obvious inference, that as sound politics diffuse liberty, mankind,

including woman, will become more wise and virtuous.



                              NOTES



[1]  Why should women be censured with petulant acrimony because

they seem to have a passion for a scarlet coat? Has not an

education placed them more on a level with soldiers than any other

class of men?



[2]  Similar feelings has Milton's pleasing picture of paradisiacal

happiness ever raised in my; yet, instead of envying the lovely

pair, I have with concious dignity or satanic pride turned to hell

for sublimer objects. In the same style, when viewing some noble

monument of human art, I have traced the emanation of the Deity in

the order I admired, till, descending from that giddy height, I

have caught myself contemplating the grandest of all human sights;

for fancy quickly placed in some solitary recess an outcast of

fortune, rising superior to passion and discontent.



[3]   For example, the herd of Novelists.



[4]  Vide Rousseau and Swedenborg.





                           CHAPTER III



                   THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED



Bodily strength from being the distinction of heroes is now sunk

into such unmerited contempt that men, as well as women, seem to

think it unnecessary; the latter, as it takes from their feminine

graces, and from that lovely weakness, the source of their undue

power; and the former, because it appears inimical to the character

of a gentleman.  



That they have both, by departing from one extreme run into

another, may easily be proved; but first it may be proper to

observe that a vulgar error has obtained a degree of credit, which

has given force to a false conclusion, in which an effect has been

mistaken for a cause. 



People of genius have very frequently impaired their constitutions

by study or careless inattention to their health, and the violence

of their passions bearing a proportion to the vigour of their

intellects, the sword's destroying the scabbard has become almost

proverbial, and superficial observers have inferred from thence

that men of genius have commonly weak, or, to use a more

fashionable phrase, delicate constitutions. Yet the contrary, I

believe, will appear to be the fact; for, on diligent inquiry, I

find that strength of mind has in most cases been accompanied by

superior strength of body,--natural soundness of constitution,--not

that robust tone of nerves and vigour of muscles, which arise from

bodily labour, when the mind is quiescent, or only directs the

hands. 



Dr. Priestley has remarked, in the preface to his biographical

chart, that the majority of great men have lived beyond fortyfive.

And considering the thoughtless manner in which they have lavished

their strength when investigating a favourite science, they have

wasted the lamp of life, forgetful of the midnight hour; or, when

lost in poetic dreams, fancy has peopled the scene, and the soul

has been disturbed, till it shook the constitution by the passions

that meditation had raised,--whose objects, the baseless fabric of

a vision, faded before the exhausted  eye,--they must have had iron

frames. Shakespeare never grasped the airy danger with a nerveless

hand, nor did Milton tremble when he led Satan far from the

confines of his dreary prison. These were not the ravings of

imbecility, the sickly effusions of distempered brains, but the

exuberance of fancy, that " in a fine frenzy " wandering, was not

continually reminded of its material shackles.  



I am aware that this argument would carry me further than it may be

supposed I wish to go; but I follow truth, and still adhering to my

first position, I will allow that bodily strength seems to give man

a natural superiority over woman; and this is the only solid basis

on which the superiority of the sex can be built. But I still

insist that not only the virtue but the knowledge of the two sexes

should be the same in nature, if not in degree, and that women,

considered not only as moral but rational creatures, ought to

endeavour to acquire human virtues (or perfections) by the same

means as men, instead of being educated like a fanciful kind of

half being--one of Rousseau's wild chimeras.[1]



But if strength of body be with some show of  reason the boast of

men, why are women so infatuated as to be proud of a defect ?

Rousseau has furnished them with a plausible excuse, which could

only have occurred to a man whose imagination had been allowed to

run wild, and refine on the impressions made by exquisite senses;

that they might forsooth have a pretext for yielding to a natural

appetite without violating a romantic species of modesty, which

gratifies the pride and libertinism of man.  



Women, deluded by these sentiments, sometimes boast of their

weakness, cunningly obtaining power by playing on the weakness of

men; and they may well glory in their illicit sway, for, like

Turkish bashaws, they have more real power than their masters; but

virtue is sacrificed to temporary gratifications, and the

respectability of life to the triumph of an hour.  



Women, as well as despots, have now perhaps more power than they

would have if the world, divided and subdivided into kingdoms and

families, were governed by laws deduced from the exercise of

reason; but in obtaining it, to carry on the comparison, their

character is degraded, and licentiousness spread through the whole

aggregate of society. The many become pedestal to the few. I,

therefore, will venture to assert that till women are more

rationally educated, the progress of human virtue and improvement

in knowledge must receive continual checks. And if it be granted

that woman was not created merely to gratify the appetite of man,

or to be the upper servant who provides his meals and takes care of

his linen, it must follow that the first care of those mothers or

fathers who really attend to the education of females should be, if

not to strengthen the body, at least not to destroy the

constitution by mistaken notions of beauty and female excellence;

nor should girls ever be allowed to imbibe the pernicious notion

that a defect can, by any chemical process of reasoning, become an

excellence. In this respect I am happy to find that the author  of

one of the most instructive books that our country has produced for

children, coincides with me in opinion. I shall quote his pertinent

remarks to give the force of his  respectable authority to

reason.[2] 



But should it be proved that woman is naturally weaker than man,

whence does it follow that it is natural for her to labour to

become still weaker than nature intended her to be? Arguments of

this cast are an insult to common sense, and savour of passion. The

divine right of husbands, like the divine right of kings, may, it

is to be hoped, in this enlightened age, be contested without

danger; and though conviction may not silence many boisterous

disputants, yet, when any prevailing prejudice is attacked, the

wise will consider, and leave the narrow-minded to rail with

thoughtless vehemence at innovation.  



The mother who wishes to give true dignity of character to  her

daughter must, regardless of the sneers of ignorance, proceed on a

plan diametrically opposite to that which Rousseau has  recommended

with all the deluding charms of eloquence and philosophical

sophistry, for his eloquence renders absurdities plausible, and his

dogmatic conclusions puzzle, without convincing, those who have not

ability to refute them. 



Throughout the whole animal kingdom every young creature requires

almost continual exercise, and the infancy of children, conformable

to this intimation, should be passed in harmless gambols that

exercise the feet and hands, without requiring very minute

direction from the head, or the constant attention of a nurse. In

fact, the care necessary for self-preservation is the first natural

exercise of the understanding as little inventions to amuse the

present moment unfold the imagination. But these wise designs of

nature are counteracted by mistaken fondness or blind zeal. The

child is not left a moment to its own direction--particularly a

girl and thus rendered dependent. Dependence is called natural. 



To preserve personal beauty--woman's glory--the limbs and faculties

are cramped with worse than Chinese bands, and the sedentary life

which they are condemned to live, whilst boys frolic in the open

air, weakens the muscles and relaxes the nerves. As for Rousseau's

remarks, which have since been echoed by several writers, that they

have naturally, that is, from their birth, independent of

education, a fondness for dolls, dressing, and talking, they are so

puerile as not to merit a serious refutation. That a girl,

condemned to sit for hours together listening to the idle chat of

weak nurses, or to attend at her mother's toilet, will endeavour to

join the conversation, is, indeed, very natural; and that she will

imitate her mother or aunts, and amuse herself by adorning her

lifeless doll, as they do in dressing her, poor innocent babe! is

undoubtedly a most natural consequence. For men of the greatest

abilities have seldom had sufficient strength to rise above the

surrounding atmosphere; and if the pages of genius have always been

blurred by the prejudices of the age, some allowance should be made

for a sex, who, like kings, always see things through a false

medium. 



Purposing these reflections, the fondness for dress, conspicuous in

woman, may be easily accounted for, without supposing it the result

of a desire to please the sex on which they are dependent. The

absurdity, in short, of supposing that a girl is naturally a

coquette, and that a desire connected with the impulse of nature to

propagate the species, should appear even before an improper

education has, by heating the imagination, called it forth

prematurely, is so unphilosophical, that such a sagacious observer

as Rousseau would not have adopted it, if he had not been

accustomed to make reason give way to his desire of singularity,

and truth to a favourite paradox. Yet thus to give a sex to mind

was not very consistent with the principles of a man who argued so

warmly, and so well, for the immortality of the soul. But what a

weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an hypothesis !

Rousseau respected --almost adored virtue--and yet he allowed

himself to love with sensual fondness. His imagination constantly

prepared inflammable fuel for his inflammable senses; but, in order

to reconcile his respect for self-denial, fortitude, and those

heroic virtues, which a mind like his could not coolly admire, he

labours to invert the law of nature, and broaches a doctrine

pregnant with mischief, and derogatory to the character of supreme

wisdom.  



His ridiculous stories, which tend to prove that girls are

naturally attentive to their persons, without laying any stress on

daily example, are below contempt. And that a little miss should

have such a correct taste as to neglect the pleasing amusement of

making O's, merely because she perceived that it was an ungraceful

attitude, should be selected with the anecdotes of the learned

pig.[3]



I have, probably, had an opportunity of observing more girls in

their infancy than J. J. Rousseau. I can recollect my own feelings,

and I have looked steadily around me; yet, so far from coinciding

with him in opinion respecting the first dawn of  the female

character, I will  venture to affirm, that a girl, whose spirits

have not been damped by inactivity, or innocence tainted by false

shame, will always be a romp, and the doll will never excite

attention unless confinement allows her no alternative. Girls and

boys, in short, would play, harmlessly together, if the distinction

of sex was not inculcated long before nature makes any difference.

I will go further, and affirm, as an indisputable fact, that most

of the women, in the circle of my observation, who have acted like

rational creatures, or shown any vigour of intellect, have

accidentally been allowed to run wild, as some of the elegant

formers of the fair sex would insinuate.  



The baneful consequences which flow from inattention to health

during infancy and youth, extend further than is supposed--

dependence of body naturally produces dependence of mind; and how

can she be a good wife or mother, the greater part of whose time is

employed to guard against or endure sickness? Nor can it be

expected that & woman will resolutely endeavour to strengthen her

constitution and abstain from enervating indulgences, if artificial

notions of beauty, and false descriptions of sensibility, have been

early entangled with her motives of action. Most men are sometimes

obliged to bear with bodily inconveniences, and to endure,

occasionally, the inclemency of the elements; but genteel women

are, literally speaking, slaves to their bodies, and glory in their

subjection. 



I once knew a weak woman of fashion, who was more than commonly

proud of her delicacy and sensibility. She thought a distinguishing

taste and puny appetite the height of all human perfection, and

acted accordingly. I have seen this weak sophisticated being

neglect all the duties of life, yet recline with self-complacency

on a sofa, and boast of her want of appetite as a proof of delicacy

that extended to, or, perhaps, arose from, her exquisite

sensibility; for it is difficult to render intelligible such

ridiculous jargon. Yet, at the moment, I have seen her insult a

worthy old gentlewoman, whom unexpected misfortunes had made

dependent on her ostentatious bounty, and who, in better days, had

claims on her gratitude. Is it possible that a human creature could

have become such a weak and depraved being, if, like the Sybarites,

dissolved in luxury, everything like virtue had not been worn

pressed by precept, a poor substitute, it is of mind, though it

serves as a fence against vice? 



Such a woman is not a more irrational monster than some of the

Roman emperors, who were depraved by lawless power. Yet, since

kings have been more under the restraint of law, and the curb,

however weak, of honour, the records of history are not filled with

such unnatural instances of folly and cruelty, nor does the

despotism that kills virtue and genius in the bud, hover over

Europe with that destructive blast which desolates Turkey, and

renders the men, as well as the soil, unfruitful. 



Women are everywhere in this deplorable state; for, in  order to

preserve their innocence, as ignorance is courteously termed, truth

is hidden from them, and they are made to assume an artificial

character before their faculties have acquired any strength. Taught

from their infancy that beauty is woman's sceptre, the mind shapes

itself to the body, and roaming round its gilt cage, only seeks to

adore its prison. Men have various employments and pursuits which

engage their attention, and give a character to the opening mind;

but women, confined to one, and having their thoughts constantly

directed to the most insignificant part of themselves, seldom

extend their views beyond the triumph of the hour. But were their

understanding once emancipated from the slavery to which the pride

and sensuality of man and their short-sighted desire, like that of

dominion in tyrants, of present sway, has subjected them, we should

probably read of their weaknesses with surprise. I must be allowed

to pursue the argument a little further.  



Perhaps, if the existence of an evil being were allowed, who, in

the allegorical language of Scripture, went about seeking whom he

should devour, he could not more effectually degrade the human

character, than by giving a man absolute power. 



This argument branches into various ramifications. Birth, riches,

and every extrinsic advantage that exalt a man above his fellows,

without any mental exertion, sink him in reality below them. In

proportion to his weakness, he is played upon by designing men,

till the bloated monster has lost all traces of humanity. And that

tribes of-men, like flocks of sheep, should quietly follow such a

leader, is a solecism that only a desire of present enjoyment and

narrowness of understanding can solve. Educated in slavish

dependence, and enervated by luxury and sloth, where shall we find

men who will stand forth to assert the rights of man, or claim the

privilege of moral beings, who should have but one road to

excellence? Slavery to monarchs and ministers, which the world will

be long in freeing itself from, and whose deadly grasp stops the

progress of the human mind, is not yet abolished. 





Let not men then in the pride of power, use the same arguments that

tyrannic kings and venal ministers have used, and fallaciously

assert that woman ought to be subjected because  she has always

been so. But, when man, governed by reasonable laws, enjoys his

natural freedom, let him despise woman, if she do not share it with

him; and, till that glorious period arrives, in descanting on the

folly of the sex, let him not overlook his own. 



Women, it is true, obtaining power by unjust means, by practising

or fostering vice, evidently lose the rank which reason would

assign them, and they become either abject slaves or capricious

tyrants. They lose all simplicity, all dignity of mind, in

acquiring power, and act as men are observed to act when they have

been exalted by the same means. 



It is time to effect a revolution in female manners--time to

restore to them their lost dignity--and make them, as a part of the

human species, labour by reforming themselves to reform the world.

It is time to separate unchangeable morals from local manners. If

men be demi-gods, why let us serve them! And if the dignity of the

female soul be as disputable as that of animals--if their reason

does not afford sufficient light to direct their conduct whilst

unerring instinct is denied--they are surely of all creatures the

most miserable ! and, bent beneath the iron hand of destiny, must

submit to be a fair defect in creation. But to justify the ways of

Providence respecting them, by pointing out some irrefragable

reason for thus making such a large portion of mankind accountable

and not accountable, would puzzle the subtilest casuist. 



The only solid foundation for morality appears to be the character

of the Supreme Being; the harmony of which arises from a balance of

attributes,--and, to speak with reverence, one attribute seems to

imply the necessity of another. He must be just, because He is

wise; He must be good, because He is omnipotent. For to exalt one

attribute at the expense of another equally noble and necessary,

bears the stamp of the warped reason of man--the homage of passion.

Man, accustomed to bow down to power in his savage state, can

seldom divest himself of this barbarous prejudice, even when

civilisation determines how much superior mental is to bodily

strength; and his reason is clouded by these crude opinions, even

when he thinks of the Deity. His omnipotence is made to swallow up,

or preside over His other attributes, and those morals are supposed

to limit His power irreverently, who think that it must be

regulated by His wisdom. 



I disclaim that specious humility which, after investigating

nature, stops at the Author. The High and Lofty one, who inhabiteth

eternity, doubtless possesses many attributes of which we can form

no conception; but Reason tells me that they cannot dash with those

I adore--and I am compelled to listen to her voice. 



It seems natural for man to search for excellence, and either to

trace it in the object that he worships, or blindly to invest it

with perfection, as a garment. But what good effect can the latter

mode of worship have on the moral conduct of a rational being? He

bends to power; he adores a dark cloud, which may open a bright

prospect to him, to burst in angry, lawless fury, on his devoted

head--he knows not why. And, supposing that the Deity acts from the

vague impulse of an undirected will, man must also follow his own,

or act according to rules, deduced from principles which he

disclaims as irreverent. Into this dilemma have both enthusiasts

and cooler thinkers fallen, when they laboured to free men from the

wholesome restraints which a just conception of the character of

God imposes. 



It is not impious thus to scan the attributes of the Almighty: in

fact, who can avoid it that exercises his faculties? For to love

God as the fountain of wisdom, goodness, and power, appears to be

the only worship useful to a being who wishes to acquire either

virtue or knowledge. A blind unsettled affection may, like human

passions, occupy the mind and warm the heart, whilst, to do

justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God, is forgotten. I

shall pursue this subject still further, when I consider religion

in a light opposite to that recommended by Dr. Gregory, who treats

it as a matter of sentiment or taste. 



To return from this apparent digression. It were to be wished that

women would cherish an affection for their husbands, founded on the

same principle that devotion ought to rest upon. No other firm base

is there under heaven--for let them beware of the fallacious light

of sentiment; too often used as a softer phrase for sensuality. It

follows then, I think, that from their infancy women should either

be shut up like Eastern princes, or educated in such a manner as to

be able to think and act for themselves. 



Why do men halt between two opinions, and expect impossibilities?

Why do they expect virtue from a slave, from a being whom the

constitution of civil society has rendered weak, if not vicious? 



Still I know that it will require a considerable length of time to

eradicate the firmly rooted prejudices which sensualists have

planted; it will also require some time to convince women that they

act contrary to their real interest on an enlarged scale, when they

cherish or affect weakness under the name of delicacy, and to

convince the world that the poisoned source of female vices and

follies, if it be necessary, in compliance with custom, to use

synonymous terms in a lax sense, has been the sensual homage paid

to beauty:--to beauty of features; for it has been shrewdly

observed by a German writer, that a pretty woman, as an object of

desire, is generally allowed to be so by men of all descriptions;

whilst a fine woman, who inspires more sublime emotions by

displaying intellectual beauty, may be overlooked or observed with

indifference, by those men who find their happiness in their

gratification of their appetites. I foresee an obvious

retort--whilst man remains such an imperfect being as he appears

hitherto to have been, he will, more or less, be the slave of his

appetites; and those women obtaining most power who gratify a

predominant one, the sex is degraded by a physical, if not by a

moral necessity. 



This objection has, I grant, some force; but while such a sublime

precept exists, as, "Be pure as your heavenly Father is pure"; it

would seem that the virtues of man are not limited by the Being who

alone could limit them; and that he may press forward without

considering whether he steps out of his sphere by indulging such a

noble ambition. To the wild billows it has been said, "Thus far

shalt thou go, and no farther; and here shall thy proud waves be

stayed." Vainly then do they beat and foam, restrained by the power

that confines the struggling planets in their orbits, matter yields

to the great governing Spirit. But an immortal soul, not restrained

by mechanical laws and struggling to free itself from the shackles

of matter, contributes to, instead of disturbing, the order of

creation, when, co-operating with the Father of spirits, it tries

to govern itself by the invariable rule that, in a degree, before

which our imagination faints, regulates the universe.  



Besides, if women be educated for dependence, that is, to act

according to the will of another fallible being, and submit, right

or wrong, to power, where are we to stop? Are they to be considered

as vicegerents allowed to reign over a small domain, and answerable

for their conduct to a higher tribunal, liable to error?  It will

not be difficult to prove that such delegates will act like men

subjected by fear, and make their children and  servants endure

their tyrannical oppression. As they submit without reason, they

will, having no fixed rules to square their conduct by, be kind, or

cruel, just as the whim of the moment directs; and we ought not to

wonder if sometimes, galled by their heavy yoke, they take a

malignant pleasure in resting it on weaker shoulders.  



But, supposing a woman, trained up to obedience, be married to a

sensible man, who directs her judgment without making her feel the

servility of her subjection, to act with as much propriety by this

reflected light as can be expected when reason is taken at

secondhand, yet she cannot ensure the life of her protector; he may

die and leave her with a large family.  



A double duty devolves on her; to educate them in the character of

both father and mother; to form their principles and secure their

property. But, alas! she has never thought, much less acted for

herself. She has only learned to please [4] men, to depend

gracefully on them; yet, encumbered with children, how is she to

obtain another protector--a husband to supply the place of reason?

A rational man, for we are not treading on romantic ground, though

he may think her a pleasing docile creature, will not choose to

marry a family for love, when the world contains many more pretty

creatures. What is then to become of her? She either falls an easy

prey to some mean fortune-hunter, who defrauds her children of

their paternal inheritance, and renders her miserable; or becomes

the victim of discontent and blind indulgence. Unable to educate

her sons, or impress them with respect,--for it is not a play on

words to assert, that people are never respected, though filling an

important station, who are not respectable,--she pines under the

anguish of unavailing impotent regret. The serpent's tooth enters

into her very soul, and the vices of licentious youth bring her

with sorrow, if not with poverty also, to the grave.



This is not an overcharged picture; on the contrary, it is a very

possible case, and something similar must have fallen under every

attentive eye. 



I have, however, taken it for granted, that she was well disposed,

though experience shows, that the blind may as easily be led into

a ditch as along the beaten road. But supposing, no very improbable

conjecture, that a being only taught to please must still find her

happiness in pleasing; what an example of folly, not to say vice,

will she be to her innocent daughters! The mother will be lost in

the coquette, and, instead of making friends of her daughters, view

them with eyes askance, for they are rivals--rivals more cruel than

any other, because they invite a comparison, and drive her from the

throne of beauty, who has never thought of a seat on the bench of

reason. 



It does not require a lively pencil, or the discriminating outline

of a caricature, to sketch the domestic miseries and petty vices

which such a mistress of a family diffuses. Still she only acts as

a woman ought to act, brought up according to Rousseau's system.

She can never be reproached for being masculine, or turning out of

her sphere; nay, she may observe another of his grand rules, and,

cautiously preserving her reputation free from spot, be reckoned a

good kind of woman. Yet in what respect can she be termed good? She

abstains, it is true, without any great struggle, from committing

gross crimes; but how does she fulfil her duties? Duties! in truth

she has enough to think of to adorn her body and nurse a weak

constitution.



With respect to religion, she never presumed to judge for herself;

but conformed, as a dependent creature should, to the effects of a

good education ! These the virtues of man's helpmate ![5] 



I must relieve myself by drawing a different picture.  



Let fancy now present a woman with a tolerable understanding, for

I do not wish to leave the line of mediocrity, whose constitution,

strengthened by exercise, has allowed her body to acquire its full

vigour; her mind, at the same time, gradually expanding itself to

comprehend the moral duties of life, and in what human virtue and

dignity consist. 



Formed thus by the discharge of the relative duties of her station,

she marries from affection, without losing sight of prudence, and

looking beyond matrimonial felicity, she secures her husband's

respect before it is necessary to exert mean arts to please him and

feed a dying flame, which nature doomed to expire when the object

became familiar, when friendship and forbearance take place of a

more ardent affection. This is the natural death of love, and

domestic peace is not destroyed by struggles to prevent its

extinction. I also suppose the husband to be virtuous; or she is

still more in want of independent principles. 



Fate, however, breaks this tie. She is left a widow, perhaps

without a sufficient provision; but she is not desolate! The pang

of nature is felt; but after time has softened sorrow into

melancholy resignation, her heart turns to her children with

redoubled fondness, and anxious to provide for them, affection

gives a sacred heroic cast to her maternal duties. She thinks that

not only the eye sees her virtuous efforts from whom all her

comfort now must flow, and whose approbation is life; but her

imagination, a little abstracted and exalted by grief, dwells on

the fond hope that the eyes which her trembling hand closed, may

still see how she subdues every wayward passion to fulfil the

double duty of being the father as well as the mother of her

children. Raised to heroism by misfortunes, she represses the first

faint dawning of a natural inclination, before it ripens into love,

and in the bloom of life forgets her sex--forgets the pleasure of

an awakening passion, which might again have been inspired and

returned. She no longer thinks of pleasing, and conscious dignity

prevents her from priding herself on account of the praise which

her conduct demands. Her children have her love, and her brightest

hopes are beyond the grave, where her imagination often strays. 



I think I see her surrounded by her children, reaping the reward of

her care. The intelligent eye meets hers, whilst health and

innocence smile on their chubby cheeks, and as they grow up the

cares of life are lessened by their grateful attention. She lives

to see the virtues which she endeavoured to plant on principles,

fixed into habits, to see her children attain a strength of

character sufficient to enable them to endure adversity without

forgetting their mother's example.



The task of life thus fulfilled, she calmly waits for the sleep of

death, and rising from the grave, may say--"Behold, Thou gavest me

a talent, and here are five talents." 



I wish to sum up what I have said in a few words, for I here throw

down my gauntlet, and deny the existence of sexual virtues, not

excepting modesty. For man and woman, truth, if I understand the

meaning of the word, must be the same; yet the fanciful female

character, so prettily drawn by poets and novelists, demanding the

sacrifice of truth and sincerity, virtue becomes a relative idea,

having no other foundation than utility, and of that utility men

pretend arbitrarily to judge, shaping it to their own convenience. 



Women, I allow, may have different duties to fulfil; but they are

human duties, and the principles that should regulate the discharge

of them, I sturdily maintain, must be the same. 



To become respectable, the exercise of their of their understanding

is necessary, there is of character; I mean bow to the authority

slaves of opinion. 



In the superior ranks of life how seldom do we meet with a man of

superior abilities, or even common acquirements? The reason appears

to me clear, the state they are born in was an unnatural one. The


Based on the Everyman's Library edition, originally published 
in 1929, reprinted 1992. (Only the introduction is copyrighted.)
ISBN 0 460 87173 0