Web
and Book design,
Copyright, Kellscraft Studio 1999-2020 (Return to Web Text-ures) |
Click
Here to return to
A Vindication of the Rights of Woman Content Page Return to the Previous Chapter |
(HOME)
|
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 forty-five.
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 please4 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 human
character has ever been formed by the employments the individual, or class,
pursues; and if the faculties are not sharpened by necessity, they must remain
obtuse. The argument may fairly be extended to women; for, seldom occupied by
serious business, the pursuit of pleasure gives that insignificancy to their
character which renders the society of the great so insipid. The same want of
firmness, produced by a similar cause, forces them both to fly from themselves
to noisy pleasures, and artificial passions, till vanity takes place of every
social affection, and the characteristics of humanity can scarcely be
discerned. Such are the blessings of civil governments, as they are at present
organised, that wealth and female softness equally tend to debase mankind, and
are produced by the same cause; but allowing women to be rational creatures,
they should be incited to acquire virtues which they may call their own, for
how can a rational being be ennobled by anything that is not obtained by its
own exertions? 1
"Researches into abstract and speculative truths the principles and axioms
of sciences, in short, everything which tends to generalise our ideas, is
not the proper province of women, their studies should be relative to points of
practice; it belongs to them to apply those principles which men have discovered
and it is their part to make observations which direct men to the establishment
of general principles. All the ideas of women, which have not the immediate
tendency to points of duty should be directed to the study of men, and to the
attainment of those agreeable accomplishments which have taste for their object
for as to works of genius they are beyond their capacity neither have they
sufficient precision or power of attention to succeed in sciences which require
accuracy and as to physical knowledge, it belongs to those only who are most
active, most inquisitive, who comprehend the greatest variety of objects; in
short, it belongs to those who have the strongest powers, and who exercise them
most, to judge of the relations between sensible beings and the laws of nature.
A woman who is naturally weak, and does not carry her ideas to any great
extent, knows how to judge and make a proper estimate of those movements which
she sets to work, in order to aid her weakness; and these movements are the passions
of men. The mechanism she employs is much more powerful than ours, for all her
levers move the human heart. She must have the skill to incline us to do
everything which her sex will not enable her to do herself, and which is
necessary or agreeable to her; therefore she ought to study the mind of man
thoroughly, not the mind of man in general, abstractedly, but the dispositions
of those men to whom she is subject either by the laws of her country or by the
force of opinion. She should learn to penetrate into their real sentiments from
their conversation, their actions, their looks and gestures. She should also
have the art, by her own conversation, actions, looks, and gestures, to
communicate those sentiments which are agreeable to them without seeming to
intend it. Men will argue more philosophically about the human heart; but women
will read the heart of men better than they. It belongs to women if I may be
allowed the expression to form an experimental morality, and to reduce the
study of man to a system Women have most wit, men have most genius; women
observe, men reason. From the Concurrence of both we derive the clearest light
and the most perfect knowledge which the human mind is of itself capable of
attaining. In one word, from hence we acquire the most intimate acquaintance,
both with ourselves and others, of which our nature is capable; and it is thus
that art has a constant tendency to perfect those endowments which nature has
bestowed. The world is the book of women." Rousseaus Emilius. I hope my readers still remember the comparison which
I have brought forward between women and officers. 2
"A respectable old man gives the following sensible account of the method
he pursued when educating his daughter: 'I endeavoured to give both to her mind
and body a degree of vigour which is seldom found in the female sex. As soon as
she was sufficiently advanced in strength to be capable of the lighter labours
of husbandry and gardening I employed her as my constant companion. Selene for
that was her name soon acquired a dexterity in ill these rustic employments
which I considered with equal pleasure and admiration. If women are in general
feeble both in body and mind it arises less from nature than from education. We
encourage a vicious indolence and inactivity which we falsely call delicacy.
Instead of hardening their minds by the severer principles of reason and
philosophy, we breed them to useless art which terminate in vanity and
sensuality. In most of the countries which I had visited they are taught
nothing of an higher nature than a few modulations of the voice or useless
postures of the body; their time is consumed in sloth or trifles and
tribulations become the only pursuit capable of interesting them. We seem to
forget that it is upon the qualities of the female sex that our own domestic
comforts and the education of our children must depend. And what are the
comforts or the education which a race of being corrupted from their infancy
and unacquainted with all the duties of life are fitted to bestow? To touch a
musical instrument with useless skill to exhibit their cultural or affected
graces to the eyes of indolent and debauched young men, to dissipate their
husband's patrimony in riotous and unnecessary expenses these are the only arts
cultivated by women in most of the polished nations I had seen. And the
consequences are uniformly such as may be expected to proceed from such
polluted sources -private and public servitude. "'But Selene's education was regulated by
different views, and conducted upon severer principles if that can be called
severity which opens the mind to a sense of moral and religious duties, and
most effectually it arms it against the inevitable evils of life.'" Mr. Day's Sandford and Merton, vol. iii. 3
"I once knew a young person who learned to write before she learned to
read, and began to write with her needle before she could use a pen. At first,
indeed she took it into her head to make no letter than the O: this letter she
was constantly making of all sizes and always the wrong way. Unluckily one day
as she was intent on this employment, she happened to see herself in the
looking-glass; when, taking a dislike to the constrained attitude in which she
sat while writing she threw away her pen like another Pallas and determined
against making the O any more. Her brother was also equally averse to writing;
it was the confinement however and not the constrained attitude that most
disgusted him." Rousseau's Emililus. 4
"In the union of the sexes, both pursue one common object, but not in the
same manner. From their diversity in this particular, arises the first
determinate difference between the moral relations of each. The one should be
active and strong the other passive and weak; it is necessary the one should
have both the power and the will and that the other should make little
resistance. "This principle being established it follows
that woman is expressly formed to please the man: if the obligation be
reciprocal also and the man ought to please in his turn it is not so
immediately necessary his great merit is in his power and he pleases merely
because he is strong. This I must confess is not one of the refined maxims of
love; it is however one of the laws of nature prior to love itself. "If woman be formed to please and be subjected
to man, it is her place, doubtless, to render herself agreeable to him instead
of challenging his passion. The violence of his desires depends on her charms
is by means of these she should urge him to the exertion of those powers which
nature hath given him. The most successful method of exciting them, is, to
render such exertion necessary by resistance; as in that case self-love is
added to desire and the one triumphs in the victory which the other is obliged
to acquire. Hence arise the various modes of attack and defence between the
sexes the boldness of one sex and the timidity of the other; and in a word that
bashfulness and modesty with which nature hath armed the weak in order to
subdue the strong." Rousseau's Emilius. I shall make no other comment on this ingenious
passage than just to observe that it is the philosophy of lasciviousness. 5
"O how lovely, exclaims Rousseau, speaking of Sophia, is her ignorance!
Happy is he who is destined to instruct her! She will never pretend to be the
tutor of her husband but will be content to be his pupil. Far from attempting
to subject him to her taste she will accommodate her self to his. She will be
more estimable to him than if she was learned he will have a pleasure in instructing
her. Rousseau's Emilius. I shall content myself with simply asking how
friendship can subsist when love expires between the master and his pupil. |