!

this account alone they are inferior, for they are all obliged to admit the actual inferiority of the fair sex. Yet there can be no doubt that more girls than boys learn music, drawing, and painting, and that many females cultivate these arts exclusively. Why then, we may ask, do their compositions so rarely equal those of men? Whenever great combinations, deep reflection, discrimination, and general abstraction are required, when principles and laws are to be established, females in general remain behind. A shawl or a ribbon will soon absorb their minds, and make them easily neglect any philosophical discussion.

Thus, there is a natural difference between the two sexes, not in the number, but in the degrees of the primitive powers of the mind. Some are stronger in women, others stronger in men, and both sexes seem to be destined to different occupations in society. Indeed no education will change the nature of the innate dispositions. Let, then, each sex, and each individual, be cultivated and employed in those things for which he is fit. The claim to justice and merit is equal in man and woman; their duties only are different. Females are not destined in any circumstances to be slaves, or mere patient drudges, nor are their duties limited to those of chaste wives and good managers of their families only; women are required also to direct the education of their children, and to be agreeble and intelligent companions to their

husbands. Let their understandings be cultivated by useful knowledge; by the study of the human mind, and the principles of education, and of their duties in the direction of their families; let their intellect be improved by the study of history and of arts and sciences. Girls commonly learn only objects of secondary importance, mere accomplishments; and hence, when they arrive at the age of being united to a husband, they are seldom capable of supporting permanent friendship, by the elevation of their minds, and the steady practice of the domestic virtues. Many do not know how to guide themselves, and still less their offspring, their servants, and household affairs. Indeed, if the fair sex go on as they have done hitherto, they cannot repine that they have no share in political concerns. If their minds do not take a more serious and more solid turn, they may govern in drawing-rooms, where delicate feelings and polite manners are attended to, but they will have no permanent influence on the laws of society.

I beg leave, however, to repeat, that I admit individual exceptions, and speak only of the sex in general. I even think, that legislators are wrong to take it for granted, that the intellect of men is, in every case, superior to that of women. Some females contribute more than their husbands to the fortune of the family: Is it then not unjust to permit the husband to spend what the wife has gained, and to deprive her of power, when, in

point of fact, she might manage affairs to the ad vantage of her family and of herself?

I would not like to be misunderstood, and certainly not to be thought hostile to the fair sex. I most sincerely wish their advancement in every respect. In my opinion there should be a greater number of better wives, if there were a greater number of better husbands. But I think of women what I say of nations. If they want a Saviour from without, they are not yet fit for emancipation. Let them do the work necessary to this change, and they will no longer complain of inferiority. Let the girls cultivate their intellect by practical knowledge. Let them aim at solidity as well as polite and refined manners, and not at prudery. This latter can be an indication neither of sense nor of taste. Society, where both sexes meet together in social intercourse, is most conducive to mutual improvement, to delicacy of sentiment and language. Why do gentlemen exclude ladies from their society when they meet to speak of scientific objects ? Ladies of former days probably have shown less taste for such conversations. Or is it the fault of the gentlemen? In that case let our females direct the attention of men to science and arts, let them prove that they have the same desire of knowledge as their pretended Lords, and are not occupied merely with finery, ornamental dress, and showy appearances. Let them emancipate themselves. But as long as they can read

the Old Testament from one end to another, and can listen to sermons where expressions are used, which no delicate person would pronounce in polite society of gentlemen, whilst they think it indelicate to speak at table of the leg of a fowl, I cannot help thinking, that there is some want of reflection either in the gentlemen who introduce such customs, or in the ladies who submit to them, or in both. I know the power of custom, but if the fair sex cannot overcome such fashionable, but nonsensical trifles, how can they imagine to be able to legislate for society at large? I am sorry to say, but, indeed I cannot perceive any arrangement of nature that can lead me to expect that women in general will cease soon to be considered as subordinate to men in the higher intellectual capacities. Their feelings obscure easily their understanding; this is evident in their religious manifestations. In social life they seize quickly the useful and practical part of things, but they seldom take general and comprehensive views. Yet let the many gratify their ambition; let them endeavor, if they please, to acquire the same degree of talent, energy, penetration and perseverance which we see in many men ; but, till they have acquired it, let them cherish order, and exercise the virtues of their actual condition in society, rather than to present themselves in a sphere for which they, generally speaking, are not fitted.

CHAPTER VI.

EDUCATION OF NATIONS.

THE first idea that presents itself in this Chapter, is to inquire who, according to the laws of the CREATOR, is intrusted with national education, this being taken in the most extensive signification of the word. In treating of the education of children, I took it for granted, that parents are their natural protectors and leaders, and that they ought to consider it their duty, to favor the happiness of their progeny. On the other hand, parents, being free agents, are to be declared answerable for their influence on their offspring.

Nations and governments are often compared, the former with children, and the latter with parents. The analogy, however, is very inaccurate, nations never owing their existence to their governors. This comparison is further objectionable, since nations always provide for the living of their rulers. It seems, therefore, more reasonable to think, that individuals unite under determinate conditions for the sake of the common good; and submit, on that account, to an appointed leader or director. But who could fancy that this submis