CHAPTER 3.

by Mary Wollstonecraft

　　THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.Bodily strength from being the distinction of heroes is now sunkinto such unmerited contempt, that men as well as women, seem tothink it unnecessary: the latter, as it takes from their femininegraces, and from that lovely weakness, the source of their unduepower; and the former, because it appears inimical with thecharacter of a gentleman.

　　That they have both by departing from one extreme run into another,may easily be proved; but it first may be proper to observe, that avulgar error has obtained a degree of credit, which has given forceto a false conclusion, in which an effect has been mistaken for acause.

　　People of genius have, very frequently, impaired theirconstitutions by study, or careless inattention to their health,and the violence of their passions bearing a proportion to thevigour of their intellects, the sword's destroying the scabbard hasbecome almost proverbial, and superficial observers have inferredfrom thence, that men of genius have commonly weak, or to use amore fashionable phrase, delicate constitutions. Yet the contrary,I believe, will appear to be the fact; for, on diligent inquiry, Ifind that strength of mind has, in most cases, been accompanied bysuperior strength of body, natural soundness of constitution, notthat robust tone of nerves and vigour of muscles, which arise frombodily labour, when the mind is quiescent, or only directs thehands.

　　Dr. Priestley has remarked, in the preface to his biographicalchart, that the majority of great men have lived beyond forty-five.And, considering the thoughtless manner in which they lavishedtheir strength, when investigating a favourite science, they havewasted the lamp of life, forgetful of the midnight hour; or, when,lost in poetic dreams, fancy has peopled the scene, and the soulhas been disturbed, till it shook the constitution, by the passionsthat meditation had raised; whose objects, the baseless fabric of avision, faded before the exhausted eye, they must have had ironframes. Shakespeare never grasped the airy dagger with a nervelesshand, nor did Milton tremble when he led Satan far from theconfines of his dreary prison. These were not the ravings ofimbecility, the sickly effusions of distempered brains; but theexuberance of fancy, that "in a fine phrenzy" wandering, was notcontinually reminded of its material shackles.

　　I am aware, that this argument would carry me further than it maybe supposed I wish to go; but I follow truth, and still adhering tomy first position, I will allow that bodily strength seems to giveman a natural superiority over woman; and this is the only solidbasis on which the superiority of the sex can be built. But Istill insist, that not only the virtue, but the KNOWLEDGE of thetwo sexes should be the same in nature, if not in degree, and thatwomen, considered not only as moral, but rational creatures, oughtto endeavour to acquire human virtues (or perfections) by the SAMEmeans as men, instead of being educated like a fanciful kind ofHALF being, one of Rousseau's wild chimeras.

　　But, if strength of body be, with some show of reason, the boast ofmen, why are women so infatuated as to be proud of a defect?Rousseau has furnished them with a plausible excuse, which couldonly have occurred to a man, whose imagination had been allowed torun wild, and refine on the impressions made by exquisite senses,that they might, forsooth have a pretext for yielding to a naturalappetite without violating a romantic species of modesty, whichgratifies the pride and libertinism of man.

　　Women deluded by these sentiments, sometimes boast of theirweakness, cunningly obtaining power by playing on the WEAKNESS ofmen; and they may well glory in their illicit sway, for, likeTurkish bashaws, they have more real power than their masters: butvirtue is sacrificed to temporary gratifications, and therespectability of life to the triumph of an hour.

　　Women, as well as despots, have now, perhaps, more power than theywould have, if the world, divided and subdivided into kingdoms andfamilies, was governed by laws deduced from the exercise of reason;but in obtaining it, to carry on the comparison, their character isdegraded, and licentiousness spread through the whole aggregate ofsociety. The many become pedestal to the few. I, therefore willventure to assert, that till women are more rationally educated,the progress of human virtue and improvement in knowledge mustreceive continual checks. And if it be granted, that woman was notcreated merely to gratify the appetite of man, nor to be the upperservant, who provides his meals and takes care of his linen, itmust follow, that the first care of those mothers or fathers, whoreally attend to the education of females, should be, if not tostrengthen the body, at least, not to destroy the constitution bymistaken notions of beauty and female excellence; nor should girlsever be allowed to imbibe the pernicious notion that a defect can,by any chemical process of reasoning become an excellence. In thisrespect, I am happy to find, that the author of one of the mostinstructive books, that our country has produced for children,coincides with me in opinion; I shall quote his pertinent remarksto give the force of his respectable authority to reason.*

　　(*Footnote. A respectable old man gives the following sensibleaccount of the method he pursued when educating his daughter. "Iendeavoured to give both to her mind and body a degree of vigour,which is seldom found in the female sex. As soon as she wassufficiently advanced in strength to be capable of the lighterlabours of husbandry and gardening, I employed her as my constantcompanion. Selene, for that was her name, soon acquired adexterity in all these rustic employments which I considered withequal pleasure and admiration. If women are in general feeble bothin body and mind, it arises less from nature than from education.We encourage a vicious indolence and inactivity, which we falselycall delicacy; instead of hardening their minds by the severerprinciples of reason and philosophy, we breed them to useless arts,which terminate in vanity and sensuality. In most of the countrieswhich I had visited, they are taught nothing of an higher naturethan a few modulations of the voice, or useless postures of thebody; their time is consumed in sloth or trifles, and triflesbecome the only pursuits capable of interesting them. We seem toforget, that it is upon the qualities of the female sex, that ourown domestic comforts and the education of our children mustdepend. And what are the comforts or the education which a race ofbeings corrupted from their infancy, and unacquainted with all theduties of life, are fitted to bestow? To touch a musicalinstrument with useless skill, to exhibit their natural or affectedgraces, to the eyes of indolent and debauched young men, whodissipate their husbands' patrimony in riotous and unnecessaryexpenses: these are the only arts cultivated by women in most ofthe polished nations I had seen. And the consequences areuniformly such as may be expected to proceed from such pollutedsources, private misery, and public servitude.

　　"But, Selene's education was regulated by different views, andconducted upon severer principles; if that can be called severitywhich opens the mind to a sense of moral and religious duties, andmost effectually arms it against the inevitable evils oflife."—Mr. Day's "Sandford and Merton," Volume 3.)

　　But should it be proved that woman is naturally weaker than man,from whence does it follow that it is natural for her to labour tobecome still weaker than nature intended her to be? Arguments ofthis 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 withoutdanger, and though conviction may not silence many boisterousdisputants, yet, when any prevailing prejudice is attacked, thewise will consider, and leave the narrow-minded to rail withthoughtless vehemence at innovation.

　　The mother, who wishes to give true dignity of character to herdaughter, must, regardless of the sneers of ignorance, proceed on aplan diametrically opposite to that which Rousseau has recommendedwith all the deluding charms of eloquence and philosophicalsophistry: for his eloquence renders absurdities plausible, andhis dogmatic conclusions puzzle, without convincing those who havenot ability to refute them.

　　Throughout the whole animal kingdom every young creature requiresalmost continual exercise, and the infancy of children, conformableto this intimation, should be passed in harmless gambols, thatexercise the feet and hands, without requiring very minutedirection from the head, or the constant attention of a nurse. Infact, the care necessary for self-preservation is the first naturalexercise of the understanding, as little inventions to amuse thepresent moment unfold the imagination. But these wise designs ofnature are counteracted by mistaken fondness or blind zeal. Thechild is not left a moment to its own direction, particularly agirl, and thus rendered dependent—dependence is called natural.

　　To preserve personal beauty, woman's glory! the limbs and facultiesare cramped with worse than Chinese bands, and the sedentary lifewhich they are condemned to live, whilst boys frolic in the openair, weakens the muscles and relaxes the nerves. As for Rousseau'sremarks, which have since been echoed by several writers, that theyhave naturally, that is from their birth, independent of education,a fondness for dolls, dressing, and talking, they are so puerile asnot to merit a serious refutation. That a girl, condemned to sitfor hours together listening to the idle chat of weak nurses or toattend at her mother's toilet, will endeavour to join theconversation, is, indeed very natural; and that she will imitateher mother or aunts, and amuse herself by adorning her lifelessdoll, as they do in dressing her, poor innocent babe! isundoubtedly a most natural consequence. For men of the greatestabilities have seldom had sufficient strength to rise above thesurrounding atmosphere; and, if the page of genius has always beenblurred by the prejudices of the age, some allowance should be madefor a sex, who, like kings, always see things through a falsemedium.

　　In this manner may the fondness for dress, conspicuous in women, beeasily accounted for, without supposing it the result of a desireto please the sex on which they are dependent. The absurdity, inshort, of supposing that a girl is naturally a coquette, and that adesire connected with the impulse of nature to propagate thespecies, should appear even before an improper education has, byheating the imagination, called it forth prematurely, is sounphilosophical, that such a sagacious observer as Rousseau wouldnot have adopted it, if he had not been accustomed to make reasongive way to his desire of singularity, and truth to a favouriteparadox.

　　Yet thus to give a sex to mind was not very consistent with theprinciples of a man who argued so warmly, and so well, for theimmortality of the soul. But what a weak barrier is truth when itstands in the way of an hypothesis! Rousseau respected—almostadored virtue—and yet allowed himself to love with sensualfondness. His imagination constantly prepared inflammable fuel forhis inflammable senses; but, in order to reconcile his respect forself-denial, fortitude and those heroic virtues, which a mind likehis could not coolly admire, he labours to invert the law ofnature, and broaches a doctrine pregnant with mischief, andderogatory to the character of supreme wisdom.

　　His ridiculous stories, which tend to prove that girls areNATURALLY attentive to their persons, without laying any stress ondaily example, are below contempt. And that a little miss shouldhave such a correct taste as to neglect the pleasing amusement ofmaking O's, merely because she perceived that it was an ungracefulattitude, should be selected with the anecdotes of the learnedpig.*

　　(*Footnote. "I once knew a young person who learned to writebefore she learned to read, and began to write with her needlebefore she could use a pen. At first indeed, she took it into herhead to make no other letter than the O: this letter she wasconstantly making of all sizes, and always the wrong way.Unluckily one day, as she was intent on this employment, shehappened to see herself in the looking glass; when, taking adislike to the constrained attitude in which she sat while writing,she threw away her pen, like another Pallas, and determined againstmaking the O any more. Her brother was also equally averse towriting: it was the confinement, however, and not the constrainedattitude, that most disgusted him."Rousseau's "Emilius.")

　　I have, probably, had an opportunity of observing more girls intheir infancy than J. J. Rousseau. I can recollect my ownfeelings, and I have looked steadily around me; yet, so far fromcoinciding with him in opinion respecting the first dawn of thefemale character, I will venture to affirm, that a girl, whosespirits have not been damped by inactivity, or innocence tainted byfalse shame, will always be a romp, and the doll will never exciteattention unless confinement allows her no alternative. Girls andboys, in short, would play harmless together, if the distinction ofsex was not inculcated long before nature makes any difference. Iwill, go further, and affirm, as an indisputable fact, that most ofthe women, in the circle of my observation, who have acted likerational creatures, or shown any vigour of intellect, haveaccidentally been allowed to run wild, as some of the elegantformers of the fair sex would insinuate.

　　The baneful consequences which flow from inattention to healthduring infancy, and youth, extend further than is supposed,dependence of body naturally produces dependence of mind; and howcan she be a good wife or mother, the greater part of whose time isemployed to guard against or endure sickness; nor can it beexpected, that a woman will resolutely endeavour to strengthen herconstitution and abstain from enervating indulgences, if artificialnotions of beauty, and false descriptions of sensibility, have beenearly entangled with her motives of action. Most men are sometimesobliged to bear with bodily inconveniences, and to endure,occasionally, the inclemency of the elements; but genteel womenare, literally speaking, slaves to their bodies, and glory in theirsubjection.

　　I once knew a weak woman of fashion, who was more than commonlyproud of her delicacy and sensibility. She thought adistinguishing taste and puny appetite the height of all humanperfection, and acted accordingly. I have seen this weaksophisticated being neglect all the duties of life, yet reclinewith self-complacency on a sofa, and boast of her want of appetiteas a proof of delicacy that extended to, or, perhaps, arose from,her exquisite sensibility: for it is difficult to renderintelligible such ridiculous jargon. Yet, at the moment, I haveseen her insult a worthy old gentlewoman, whom unexpectedmisfortunes had made dependent on her ostentatious bounty, and who,in better days, had claims on her gratitude. Is it possible that ahuman creature should have become such a weak and depraved being,if, like the Sybarites, dissolved in luxury, every thing likevirtue had not been worn away, or never impressed by precept, apoor substitute it is true, for cultivation of mind, though itserves as a fence against vice?

　　Such a woman is not a more irrational monster than some of theRoman emperors, who were depraved by lawless power. Yet, sincekings have been more under the restraint of law, and the curb,however weak, of honour, the records of history are not filled withsuch unnatural instances of folly and cruelty, nor does thedespotism that kills virtue and genius in the bud, hover overEurope with that destructive blast which desolates Turkey, andrenders the men, as well as the soil unfruitful.

　　Women are every where in this deplorable state; for, in order topreserve their innocence, as ignorance is courteously termed, truthis hidden from them, and they are made to assume an artificialcharacter before their faculties have acquired any strength.Taught from their infancy, that beauty is woman's sceptre, the mindshapes itself to the body, and, roaming round its gilt cage, onlyseeks to adorn its prison. Men have various employments andpursuits which engage their attention, and give a character to theopening mind; but women, confined to one, and having their thoughtsconstantly directed to the most insignificant part of themselves,seldom extend their views beyond the triumph of the hour. But wastheir understanding once emancipated from the slavery to which thepride and sensuality of man and their short sighted desire, likethat of dominion in tyrants, of present sway, has subjected them,we should probably read of their weaknesses with surprise. I mustbe allowed to pursue the argument a little farther.

　　Perhaps, if the existence of an evil being was allowed, who, in theallegorical language of scripture, went about seeking whom heshould devour, he could not more effectually degrade the humancharacter than by giving a man absolute power.

　　This argument branches into various ramifications. Birth, riches,and every intrinsic advantage that exalt a man above his fellows,without any mental exertion, sink him in reality below them. Inproportion to his weakness, he is played upon by designing men,till the bloated monster has lost all traces of humanity. And thattribes of men, like flocks of sheep, should quietly follow such aleader, is a solecism that only a desire of present enjoyment andnarrowness of understanding can solve. Educated in slavishdependence, and enervated by luxury and sloth, where shall we findmen who will stand forth to assert the rights of man; or claim theprivilege of moral beings, who should have but one road toexcellence? Slavery to monarchs and ministers, which the world willbe long in freeing itself from, and whose deadly grasp stops theprogress of the human mind, is not yet abolished.

　　Let not men then in the pride of power, use the same arguments thattyrannic kings and venal ministers have used, and fallaciouslyassert, that woman ought to be subjected because she has alwaysbeen so. But, when man, governed by reasonable laws, enjoys hisnatural freedom, let him despise woman, if she do not share it withhim; and, till that glorious period arrives, in descanting on thefolly of the sex, let him not overlook his own.

　　Women, it is true, obtaining power by unjust means, by practisingor fostering vice, evidently lose the rank which reason wouldassign them, and they become either abject slaves or capricioustyrants. They lose all simplicity, all dignity of mind, inacquiring power, and act as men are observed to act when they havebeen exalted by the same means.

　　It is time to effect a revolution in female manners, time torestore to them their lost dignity, and make them, as a part of thehuman species, labour by reforming themselves to reform the world.It is time to separate unchangeable morals from local manners. Ifmen be demi-gods, why let us serve them! And if the dignity of thefemale soul be as disputable as that of animals, if their reasondoes not afford sufficient light to direct their conduct whilstunerring instinct is denied, they are surely of all creatures themost miserable and, bent beneath the iron hand of destiny, mustsubmit to be a FAIR DEFECT in creation. But to justify the ways ofprovidence respecting them, by pointing out some irrefragablereason for thus making such a large portion of mankind accountableand not accountable, would puzzle the subtlest casuist.

　　The only solid foundation for morality appears to be the characterof the Supreme Being; the harmony of which arises from a balance ofattributes; and, to speak with reverence, one attribute seems toimply the NECESSITY of another. He must be just, because he iswise, he must be good, because he is omnipotent. For, to exalt oneattribute 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, canseldom divest himself of this barbarous prejudice even whencivilization determines how much superior mental is to bodilystrength; and his reason is clouded by these crude opinions, evenwhen he thinks of the Deity. His omnipotence is made to swallowup, or preside over his other attributes, and those mortals aresupposed to limit his power irreverently, who think that it must beregulated by his wisdom.

　　I disclaim that species of humility which, after investigatingnature, stops at the author. The high and lofty One, whoinhabiteth eternity, doubtless possesses many attributes of whichwe can form no conception; but reason tells me that they cannotclash with those I adore, and I am compelled to listen to hervoice.

　　It seems natural for man to search for excellence, and either totrace it in the object that he worships, or blindly to invest itwith perfection as a garment. But what good effect can the lattermode of worship have on the moral conduct of a rational being? Hebends to power; he adores a dark cloud, which may open a brightprospect to him, or burst in angry, lawless fury on his devotedhead, he knows not why. And, supposing that the Deity acts fromthe vague impulse of an undirected will, man must also follow hisown, or act according to rules, deduced from principles which hedisclaims as irreverent. Into this dilemma have both enthusiastsand cooler thinkers fallen, when they laboured to free men from thewholesome restraints which a just conception of the character ofGod imposes.

　　It is not impious thus to scan the attributes of the Almighty: infact, who can avoid it that exercises his faculties? for to loveGod as the fountain of wisdom, goodness, and power, appears to bethe only worship useful to a being who wishes to acquire eithervirtue or knowledge. A blind unsettled affection may, like humanpassions, occupy the mind and warm the heart, whilst, to dojustice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God, is forgotten. Ishall pursue this subject still further, when I consider religionin a light opposite to that recommended by Dr. Gregory, who treatsit 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, foundedon the same principle that devotion ought to rest upon. No otherfirm base is there under heaven, for let them beware of thefallacious light of sentiment; too often used as a softer phrasefor sensuality. It follows then, I think, that from their infancywomen should either be shut up like eastern princes, or educated insuch 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, or from a being whom theconstitution of civil society has rendered weak, if not vicious?

　　Still I know that it will require a considerable length of time toeradicate the firmly rooted prejudices which sensualists haveplanted; it will also require some time to convince women that theyact contrary to their real interest on an enlarged scale, when theycherish or affect weakness under the name of delicacy, and toconvince the world that the poisoned source of female vices andfollies, if it be necessary, in compliance with custom, to usesynonymous terms in a lax sense, has been the sensual homage paidto beauty: to beauty of features; for it has been shrewdlyobserved by a German writer, that a pretty woman, as an object ofdesire, is generally allowed to be so by men of all descriptions;whilst a fine woman, who inspires more sublime emotions bydisplaying intellectual beauty, may be overlooked or observed withindifference, by those men who find their happiness in thegratification of their appetites. I foresee an obvious retort;whilst man remains such an imperfect being as he appears hithertoto 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 sublimeprecept exists, as, "be pure as your heavenly father is pure;" itwould seem that the virtues of man are not limited by the Being whoalone could limit them; and that he may press forward withoutconsidering whether he steps out of his sphere by indulging such anoble ambition. To the wild billows it has been said, "thus farshalt thou go, and no further; and here shall thy proud waves bestayed." Vainly then do they beat and foam, restrained by thepower that confines the struggling planets within their orbits,matter yields to the great governing Spirit. But an immortal soul,not restrained by mechanical laws, and struggling to free itselffrom the shackles of matter, contributes to, instead of disturbing,the order of creation, when, co-operating with the Father ofspirits, it tries to govern itself by the invariable rule that, ina degree, before which our imagination faints, the universe isregulated.

　　Besides, if women are educated for dependence, that is, to actaccording to the will of another fallible being, and submit, rightor wrong, to power, where are we to stop? Are they to beconsidered as viceregents, allowed to reign over a small domain,and answerable for their conduct to a higher tribunal, liable toerror?

　　It will not be difficult to prove, that such delegates will actlike men subjected by fear, and make their children and servantsendure their tyrannical oppression. As they submit without reason,they will, having no fixed rules to square their conduct by, bekind or cruel, just as the whim of the moment directs; and we oughtnot to wonder if sometimes, galled by their heavy yoke, they take amalignant pleasure in resting it on weaker shoulders.

　　But, supposing a woman, trained up to obedience, be married to asensible man, who directs her judgment, without making her feel theservility of her subjection, to act with as much propriety by thisreflected light as can be expected when reason is taken at secondhand, yet she cannot ensure the life of her protector; he may dieand leave her with a large family.

　　A double duty devolves on her; to educate them in the character ofboth father and mother; to form their principles and secure theirproperty. But, alas! she has never thought, much less acted forherself. She has only learned to please men, to depend gracefullyon them; yet, encumbered with children, how is she to obtainanother protector; a husband to supply the place of reason? Arational man, for we are not treading on romantic ground, though hemay think her a pleasing docile creature, will not choose to marrya FAMILY for love, when the world contains many more prettycreatures. What is then to become of her? She either falls aneasy prey to some mean fortune hunter, who defrauds her children oftheir paternal inheritance, and renders her miserable; or becomesthe victim of discontent and blind indulgence. Unable to educateher sons, or impress them with respect; for it is not a play onwords to assert, that people are never respected, though filling animportant station, who are not respectable; she pines under theanguish of unavailing impotent regret. The serpent's tooth entersinto her very soul, and the vices of licentious youth bring herwith sorrow, if not with poverty also, to the grave.

　　This is not an overcharged picture; on the contrary, it is a verypossible case, and something similar must have fallen under everyattentive 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 aditch as along the beaten road. But supposing, no very improbableconjecture, that a being only taught to please must still find herhappiness in pleasing; what an example of folly, not to say vice,will she be to her innocent daughters! The mother will be lost inthe coquette, and, instead of making friends of her daughters, viewthem with eyes askance, for they are rivals—rivals more cruel thanany other, because they invite a comparison, and drive her from thethrone of beauty, who has never thought of a seat on the bench ofreason.

　　It does not require a lively pencil, or the discriminating outlineof a caricature, to sketch the domestic miseries and petty viceswhich such a mistress of a family diffuses. Still she only acts asa woman ought to act, brought up according to Rousseau's system.She can never be reproached for being masculine, or turning out ofher sphere; nay, she may observe another of his grand rules, and,cautiously preserving her reputation free from spot, be reckoned agood kind of woman. Yet in what respect can she be termed good?She abstains, it is true, without any great struggle, fromcommitting gross crimes; but how does she fulfil her duties?Duties!—in truth she has enough to think of to adorn her body andnurse a weak constitution.

　　With respect to religion, she never presumed to judge for herself;but conformed, as a dependent creature should, to the ceremonies ofthe church which she was brought up in, piously believing, thatwiser heads than her own have settled that business: and not todoubt is her point of perfection. She therefore pays her tythe ofmint and cummin, and thanks her God that she is not as other womenare. These are the blessed effects of a good education! these thevirtues of man's helpmate. I must relieve myself by drawing adifferent picture.

　　Let fancy now present a woman with a tolerable understanding, for Ido not wish to leave the line of mediocrity, whose constitution,strengthened by exercise, has allowed her body to acquire its fullvigour; her mind, at the same time, gradually expanding itself tocomprehend the moral duties of life, and in what human virtue anddignity consist. Formed thus by the relative duties of herstation, she marries from affection, without losing sight ofprudence, and looking beyond matrimonial felicity, she secures herhusband's respect before it is necessary to exert mean arts toplease him, and feed a dying flame, which nature doomed to expirewhen the object became familiar, when friendship and forbearancetake place of a more ardent affection. This is the natural deathof love, and domestic peace is not destroyed by struggles toprevent 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 pangof nature is felt; but after time has softened sorrow intomelancholy resignation, her heart turns to her children withredoubled fondness, and anxious to provide for them, affectiongives a sacred heroic cast to her maternal duties. She thinks thatnot only the eye sees her virtuous efforts, from whom all hercomfort now must flow, and whose approbation is life; but herimagination, a little abstracted and exalted by grief, dwells onthe fond hope, that the eyes which her trembling hand closed, maystill see how she subdues every wayward passion to fulfil thedouble duty of being the father as well as the mother of herchildren. Raised to heroism by misfortunes, she represses thefirst faint dawning of a natural inclination, before it ripens intolove, and in the bloom of life forgets her sex—forgets thepleasure of an awakening passion, which might again have beeninspired and returned. She no longer thinks of pleasing, andconscious dignity prevents her from priding herself on account ofthe praise which her conduct demands. Her children have her love,and her brightest hopes are beyond the grave, where her imaginationoften strays.

　　I think I see her surrounded by her children, reaping the reward ofher care. The intelligent eye meets her's, whilst health andinnocence smile on their chubby cheeks, and as they grow up thecares of life are lessened by their grateful attention. She livesto see the virtues which she endeavoured to plant on principles,fixed into habits, to see her children attain a strength ofcharacter sufficient to enable them to endure adversity withoutforgetting their mother's example.

　　The task of life thus fulfilled, she calmly waits for the sleep ofdeath, and rising from the grave may say, behold, thou gavest me atalent, and here are five talents.

　　I wish to sum up what I have said in a few words, for I here throwdown my gauntlet, and deny the existence of sexual virtues, notexcepting modesty. For man and woman, truth, if I understand themeaning of the word, must be the same; yet the fanciful femalecharacter, so prettily drawn by poets and novelists, demanding thesacrifice of truth and sincerity, virtue becomes a relative idea,having no other foundation than utility, and of that utility menpretend arbitrarily to judge, shaping it to their own convenience.

　　Women, I allow, may have different duties to fulfil; but they areHUMAN duties, and the principles that should regulate the dischargeof them, I sturdily maintain, must be the same.

　　To become respectable, the exercise of their understanding isnecessary, there is no other foundation for independence ofcharacter; I mean explicitly to say, that they must only bow to theauthority of reason, instead of being the MODEST slaves of opinion.

　　In the superior ranks of life how seldom do we meet with a man ofsuperior abilities, or even common acquirements? The reasonappears to me clear; the state they are born in was an unnaturalone. The human character has ever been formed by the employmentsthe individual, or class pursues; and if the faculties are notsharpened by necessity, they must remain obtuse. The argument mayfairly be extended to women; for seldom occupied by seriousbusiness, the pursuit of pleasure gives that insignificancy totheir character which renders the society of the GREAT so insipid.The same want of firmness, produced by a similar cause, forces themboth to fly from themselves to noisy pleasures, and artificialpassions, till vanity takes place of every social affection, andthe characteristics of humanity can scarcely be discerned. Suchare the blessings of civil governments, as they are at presentorganized, that wealth and female softness equally tend to debasemankind, and are produced by the same cause; but allowing women tobe rational creatures they should be incited to acquire virtueswhich they may call their own, for how can a rational being beennobled by any thing that is not obtained by its OWN exertions?