―4―

ADVERTISEMENT

THE following Dialogue was put into my hands,
the last spring, by a friend who resides at a distance,
with liberty to make it public. I have since been
informed that he has continued the discussion of the
subject, in another dialogue. The reception which
the present publication shall meet with will probably de-
termine the author to withhold or print the conti-
nuation.

New-York, March, 1798.

―5―

ALCUIN.

PART I.

I Called last evening on Mrs. Carter.
I had no previous acquaintance with her.
Her brother is a man of letters, who, ne-
vertheless, finds little leisure from the en-
gagements of a toilsome profession. He
scarcely spends an evening at home, yet
takes care to invite, specially and general-
ly to his house, every one who enjoys the
reputation of learning and probity. His
sister became, on the death of her husband,
his house-keeper. She was always at
home. The guests who came in search
of the man, finding him abroad, lingered a
little as politeness enjoined, but soon found
something in the features and accents of
the lady, that induced them to prolong their


―6―

stay, for their own sake: nay, without any
well defined expectation of meeting their
inviter, they felt themselves disposed to
repeat their visit. We must suppose the
conversation of the lady not destitute of
attractions; but an additional, and per-
haps the strongest inducement, was the
society of other visitants. The house be-
came, at length, a sort of rendezvous of
persons of different ages and conditions,
but respectable for talents or virtues. A
commodious apartment, excellent tea, le-
monade, and ice—and wholesome fruits—
were added to the pleasures of instructive
society: No wonder that Mrs. Carter's
coterie became the favourite resort of the
liberal and ingenious.

These things did not necessarily imply
any uncommon merit in the lady. Skill
in the superintendence of a tea-table, af-
fability and modesty, promptness to in-
quire, and docility to listen, were all that


―7―

were absolutely requisite in the mistress of
the ceremonies. Her apartment was no-
thing perhaps but a lyceum open at stated
hours, and to particular persons, who en-
joyed, gratis, the benefits of rational dis-
course, and agreeable repasts. Some one
was required to serve the guests, direct the
menials, and maintain, with suitable vigi-
lance, the empire of cleanliness and order.
This office might not be servile, merely
because it was voluntary. The influence
of an unbribed inclination might constitute
the whole difference between her and a
waiter at an inn, or the porter of a theatre.

Books are too often insipid. In reading,
the senses are inert and sluggish, or they
are solicited by foreign objects. To spur
up the flagging attention, or check the ra-
pidity of its flights and wildness of its ex-
cursions, are often found to be impracti-
cable. It is only on extraordinary occa-


―8―

sions that this faculty is at once sober and
vigorous, active and obedient. The revo-
lutions of our minds may be watched and
noted, but can seldom be explained to the
satisfaction of the inquisitive. All that the
caprice of nature has left us is to profit
by the casual presence of that which can,
by no spell, be summoned or detained.

I hate a lecturer. I find little or no be-
nefit in listening to a man who does not
occasionally call upon me for my opinion,
and allow me to canvass every step in his
argument. I cannot, with any satisfac-
tion, survey a column, how costly soever
its materials, and classical its ornaments,
when I am convinced that its foundation is
sand which the next tide will wash away.
I equally dislike formal debate, where each
man, however few his ideas, is subjected
to the necessity of drawing them out to the
length of a speech. A single proof, or
question, or hint, may be all that the state


―9―

of the controversy, or the reflections of the
speaker suggest; but this must be ampli-
fied and iterated, till the sense, perhaps, is
lost or enfeebled, that he may not fall be-
low the dignity of an orator. Conversa-
tion, careless, and unfettered, that is some-
times abrupt and sententious, sometimes
fugitive and brilliant, and sometimes co-
pious and declamatory, is a scene for
which, without being much accustomed to
it, I entertain great affection. It blends,
more happily than any other method of in-
struction, utility and pleasure. No won-
der I was desirous of knowing, long before
the opportunity was afforded me, how far
these valuable purposes were accomplished
by the frequenters of Mrs. Carter's lyceum.

In the morning I had met the doctor at
the bed-side of a sick friend, who had
strength enough to introduce us to each
other. At parting I received a special in-
vitation for the evening, and a general one


―10―

to be in force at all other times. At five
o'clock I shut up my little school, and
changed an alley in the city—dark, dirty,
and narrow, as all alleys are—for the fresh
air and smooth footing of the fields. I had
not forgotten the doctor and his lyceum.
Shall I go (said I to myself), or shall I
not? No, said the pride of poverty, and
the bashfulness of inexperience. I looked
at my unpowdered locks, my worsted
stockings, and my pewter buckles. I be-
thought me of my embarrassed air, and my
uncouth gait. I pondered on the superci-
liousness of wealth and talents, the awful-
ness of flowing muslin, the mighty task of
hitting on a right movement at entrance,
and a right posture in sitting, and on the
perplexing mysteries of tea-table decorum:
but, though confused and panic-struck, I
was not vanquished.

I had some leisure, particularly in the
evening. Could it be employed more


―11―

agreeably or usefully? To read, to write,
to meditate, to watch a declining moon,
and the varying firmament, with the emo-
tions of poetry or piety—with the optics of
Dr. Young, or of De la Lande—were de-
lightful occupations, and all at my com-
mand. Eight hours of the twenty-four
were consumed in repeating the names and
scrawling the forms of the alphabet, or in
engraving on infantile memories that twice
three make six; the rest was employed in
supplying an exhausted, rather than crav-
ing, stomach; in sleep, that never knew,
nor desired to know, the luxury of down,
and the pomp of tissue; in unravelling the
mazes of Dr. Waring; or in amplifying the
seducing suppositions of, 'if I were a king,'
or, 'if I were a lover.' Few, indeed, are
as happy as Alcuin. What is requisite to
perfect my felicity, but the blessings of
health, which is incompatible with periodi-
cal head-achs, and the visits of rheumatism;


―12―

—of peace, which cannot maintain its post
against the hum of a school, the discord of
cart-wheels, and the rhetoric of a notable
landlady;—of competence—My trade pre-
serves me from starving and nakedness, but
not from the discomforts of scarcity, or the
disgrace of shabbiness. Money to give me
leisure; and exercise, to give me health;
these are all my lot denies: in all other re-
spects, I am the happiest of mortals. The
pleasures of society, indeed, I seldom taste:
that is, I have few opportunities of actual
intercourse with that part of mankind
whose ideas extend beyond the occurrences
of the neighbourhood, or the arrangements
of their household. Not but that, when
I want company, it is always at hand. My
solitude is populous, whenever my fancy
thinks proper to people it, and with the
very beings that best suit my taste. These
beings are, perhaps, on account of my slen-
der experience, too uniform, and somewhat


―13―

grotesque. Like some other dealers in fic-
tion, I find it easier to give new names to
my visionary friends, and vary their condi-
tion, than to introduce a genuine diversity
into their characters. No one can work
without materials. My stock is slender.
There are times when I feel a moment's
regret that I do not enjoy the means of en-
larging it.—But this detail, it must be
owned, is a little beside the purpose. I
merely intended to have repeated my con-
versation with Mrs. Carter, but have wan-
dered, unawares, into a dissertation on my
own character. I shall now return, and
mention that I cut short my evening excur-
sion, speeded homeward, and, after ja-
panning anew my shoes, brushing my hat,
and equipping my body in its best geer,
proceeded to the doctor's house.

I shall not stop to describe the company,
or to dwell on those embarrassments and
awkwardnesses always incident to an un-


―14―

polished wight like me. Suffice it to say,
that I was in a few minutes respectfully
withdrawn into a corner, and fortunately a
near neighbour of the lady. To her, after
much deliberation and forethought, I ad-
dressed myself thus: “Pray, Madam, are
you a federalist?”

The theme of discourse was political.
The edicts of Carnot, and the commentary
of that profound jurist, Peter Porcupine,
had furnished ample materials of discussion.
This was my hint. The question, to be
sure, was strange, especially addressed to
a lady; but I could not, by all my study,
light upon a better mode of beginning dis-
course. She did not immediately answer.
I resumed: I see my question produces a
smile, and a pause.

True (said she). A smile may well be
produced by its novelty, and a pause by its
difficulty.

Is it so hard to say what your creed is


―15―

on this subject? Judging from the slight
observation of this evening, I should ima-
gine that to you the theme was far from
being new.

She answered, that she had been often
called upon to listen to discussions of this
sort, but did not recollect when her opi-
nion had been asked.

Will you favour me (said I) with your
opinion notwithstanding?

Surely (she replied) you are in jest.
What! ask a woman, shallow and inex-
perienced as all women are known to be,
especially with regard to these topics—her
opinion on any political question! What
in the name of decency have we to do with
politics? If you enquire the price of this
ribbon, or at what shop I purchased that
set of China, I may answer you, though I
am not sure that you would be the wiser for my
answer. These things, you know, belong
to the women's province. We are sur-


―16―

rounded by men and politicians. You
must observe that they consider themselves
in an element congenial to their sex and
station. The daringness of female curio-
sity is well known; yet it is seldom so
adventurous as to attempt to penetrate into
the mysteries of government.

It must be owned (said I) there is suffi-
cient reason for their forbearance. Most
men have trades, but every woman has a
trade. They are universally trained to the
use of the needle, and the government of a
family. No wonder that they should be
most willing to handle topics that are con-
nected with their daily employment, and
the arts in which they are proficients.—
Merchants may be expected to dwell with
most zeal on the prices of the day, and
those numerous incidents, domestic and
foreign, by which commerce is affected.
Lawyers may quote the clauses of a law,
or the articles of a treaty, without forget-


―17―

ting their profession, or travelling, as they
phrase it, out of the record. Physicians
will be most attached to livid carcases and
sick-beds. Women are most eloquent on
a fan or a tea-cup—on the furniture of the
nursery, or the qualifications of a cham-
ber-maid. How should it be otherwise?
In so doing, the merchant, the lawyer, the
physician, and the matron, may all equally
be said to stick to their lasts. Doubtless
every one's last requires some or much of
his attention. The only fault lies in some-
times allowing it wholly to engross his fa-
culties, and often in overlooking conside-
rations that are of the utmost importance to
them, even as members of a profession.

Well (said the lady), now you talk rea-
sonably. Your inference is, that women
occupy their proper sphere, when they
confine themselves to the tea-table and
their work-bag: but this sphere, whatever
you may think, is narrow. They are


―18―

obliged to wander, at times, in search of
variety. Most commonly they digress into
scandal, and this has been their eternal re-
proach; with how much reason perhaps
you can tell me.

Most unjustly, as it seems to be. Wo-
men profit by their opportunities. They
are trained to a particular art. Their
minds are, of course, chiefly occupied by
images and associations drawn from this
art. If this be blameable, it is not more
so in them than in others. It is a circum-
stance that universally takes place. It is
by no means clear, that a change in this
respect is either possible or desirable. The
arts of women are far from contemptible,
whether we consider the skill that is re-
quired by them, or, which is a bettter cri-
terion, their usefulness in society. They
are more honourable than many profes-
sions allotted to the men; those of a soldier
and barber for example; on one of which


―19―

we may justly bestow all the contempt, and
on the other all the abhorrence that we have to
spare. But though we may strive, we can
never wholly extinguish, in women, the
best principle of human nature, curiosity.
We cannot shut them out from all com-
merce with the world. We may nearly
withhold from them all knowledge of the
past, because that is chiefly contained in
books; and it is possible to interdict them
from reading, or, to speak more accurately,
withhold from them those incitements to
study, which no human being brings into
the world with him, but must owe to ex-
ternal and favourable occurrences. But
they must be, in some degree, witnesses of
what is passing. Theirs is a limited sphere,
in which they are accurate observers.
They see and hear, somewhat of the ac-
tions and characters of those around them.
These are, of course, remembered; become
the topics of reflection; and, when oppor-


―20―

tunity offers, they delight to produce and
compare them. All this is perfectly natural
and reasonable. I cannot, for my life, dis-
cover any causes of censure in it.

Very well, indeed (cried the lady), I am
glad to meet with so zealous an advocate. I am
ready enough to adopt a plausible apology
for the peculiarities of women. And yet
it is a new doctrine that would justify tri-
flers and slanderers. According to this
system, it would be absurd to blame those
who are perpetually prying into other peo-
ple's affairs, and industriously blazoning
every disadvantageous or suspicious tale.

My dear Madam you mistake me. Art-
ists may want skill; Historians may be par-
tial. Far be it from me to applaud the
malignant or the stupid. Ignorance and
envy are no favourites of mine, whether
they have or have not a chin to be shaved:
but nothing would be more grossly absurd
than to suppose these defects to be peculiar


―21―

to female artists, or the historians of the
tea-table. When these defects appear in
the most flagrant degree, they are generally
capable of an easy apology. If the sexes
had in reality separate interests, and it
were not absurd to set more value on qua-
lifications on account of their belonging
to one of our own sex, it is the women
who may justly triumph. Together with
power and property, the men have likewise
asserted their superior claim to vice and
folly.

If I understand you rightly (said the
lady), you are of opinion that the sexes
are essentially equal.

It appears to me (answered I) that hu-
man beings are moulded by the circum-
stances in which they are placed. In this
they are all alike. The differences that
flow from the sexual distinction, are as
nothing in the balance.

And yet women are often reminded that


―22―

none of their sex are to be found among
the formers of states, and the instructors
of mankind—that Pythagoras, Lycurgus,
and Socrates, Newton, and Locke, were
not women.

True; nor were they mountain savages,
nor helots, nor shoemakers. You might
as well expect a Laplander to write Greek
spontaneously, and without instruction, as
that any one should be wise or skillful,
without suitable opportunities. I humbly
presume one has a better chance of becom-
ing an astronomer by gazing at the stars
through a telescope, than in eternally ply-
ing the needle, or snapping the scissars.
To settle a bill of fare, to lard a pig, to
compose a pudding, to carve a goose, are
tasks that do not, in any remarkable de-
gree, tend to instil the love, or facilitate
the acquisition of literature and science.
Nay, I do not form prodigious expecta-
tions even of one who reads a novel or


―23―

comedy once a month, or chants once a
day to her harpsichord the hunter's foolish
invocation to Phœbus or Cynthia. Wo-
men are generally superficial and ignorant,
because they are generally cooks and
sempstresses. Men are the slaves of ha-
bit. It is doubtful whether the career of
the species will ever terminate in know-
ledge. Certain it is, they began in igno-
rance. Habit has given permanence to
errors, which ignorance had previously
rendered universal. They are prompt to
confound things which are really distinct;
and to persevere in a path to which they
have been accustomed. Hence it is that
certain employments have been exclusively
assigned to women, and that their sex is
supposed to disqualify them for any other.
Women are defective. They are seldom
or never metaphysicians, chemists, or law-
givers. Why? Because they are semp-
stresses and cooks. This is unavoidable.


―24―

Such is the unalterable constitution of hu-
man nature. They cannot read who never
saw an alphabet. They who know no
tool but the needle, cannot be skillful at
the pen.

Yes (said the lady); of all forms of
injustice, that is the most egregious which
makes the circumstance of sex a reason for
excluding one half of mankind from all
those paths which lead to usefulness and
honour.

Without doubt (returned I) there is
abundance of injustice in the sentence;
yet it is possible to misapprehend, and to
overrate the injury that flows from the
established order of things. If a certain
part of every community must be con-
demned to servile and mechanical profes-
sions, it matters not of what sex they may
be. If the benefits of leisure and science
be, of necessity, the portion of a few, why
should we be anxious to which sex the


―25―

preference is given? The evil lies in so
much of human capacity being thus fet-
tered and perverted. This allotment is sad.
Perhaps it is unnecessary. Perhaps that
precept of justice is practicable, which re-
quires that each man should take his share
of the labour, and enjoy his portion of the
rest: that the tasks now assigned to a few,
might be divided among the whole; and
what now degenerates into ceaseless and
brutalizing toil, might, by an equitable
distribution, be changed into agreeable and
useful exercise. Perhaps this inequality
is incurable. In either case it is to be la-
mented, and, as far as possible, mitigated.
Now, the question of what sex either of
those classes may be composed, is of no
importance. Though we must admit the
claims of the female sex to an equality
with the other, we cannot allow them to
be superior. The state of the ignorant,
servile, and laborious is entitled to com-


―26―

passion and relief; not because they
are women, nor because they are men;
but simply because they are rational.—
Among savage nations the women are
slaves. They till the ground, and cook
the victuals. Such is the condition of half
of the community—deplorable, without
doubt; but it would be neither more nor
less so, if the sexes were equally distributed
through each class.

But, the burthen is unequal (said Mrs.
Carter), since the strength of the females
is less.

What matters it (returned I) whether
my strength be much or little, if I am
tasked to the amount of it, and no more;
and no task can go beyond.

But nature (said the lady) has subjected
us to peculiar infirmities and hardships. In
consideration of what we suffer as mothers
and nurses, I think we ought to be exempt-
ed from the same proportion of labour.

―27―

It is hard (said I) to determine what is
the amount of your pains as mothers and
nurses. Have not ease and luxury a ten-
dency to increase that amount? Is not the
sustenance of infant offspring in every view
a privilege? Of all changes in their
condition, that which should transfer to
men the task of nurturing the innocence
and helplessness of infancy, would, I should
imagine, be to mothers the least accept-
able.

I do not complain of this province. It
is not, however, exempt from danger and
trouble. It makes a large demand upon
our time and attention. Ought not this to
be considered in the distribution of tasks
and duties?

Certainly. I was afraid you would im-
agine that too much regard had been paid
to it; that the circle of female pursuits
had been too much contracted on this ac-
count.

―28―

I, indeed (rejoined the lady), think it by
far too much contracted. But I cannot
give the authors of our institutions credit
for any such motives. On the contrary,
I think we have the highest reason to com-
plain of our exclusion from many profes-
sions which might afford us, in common
with men, the means of subsistence and
independence.

How far, dear Madam, is your com-
plaint well grounded? What is it that excludes
you from the various occupations in use
among us? Cannot a female be a trader?
I know of no law or custom that forbids it.
You may, at any time, draw a subsistence
from wages, if your station in life, or your
education has rendered you sufficiently ro-
bust. No one will deride you, or punish
you, for attempting to hew wood or bring
water. If we rarely see you driving a
team, or beating the anvil, is it not a fa-
vorable circumstance? In every family


―29―

there are various duties. Certainly the
most toilsome and rugged do not fall to
the lot of women. If your employment
be for the most part sedentary and re-
cluse, to be exempted from an intem-
perate exertion of the muscles, or to be
estranged from scenes of vulgar concourse,
might be deemed a privilege. The last of
these advantages, however, is not yours;
For do we not buy most of our meat, herbs,
and fruit, of women? In the distribution
of employments, the chief or only differ-
ence, perhaps, is, that those which require
most strength, or more unremitted exertion
of it, belong to the males: and yet, there
is nothing obligatory or inviolable in this
arrangement. In the country, the maid
that milks, and the man that ploughs, if
discontented with their present office, may
make an exchange, without breach of law,
or offence to decorum. If you possess
stock, by which to purchase the labour of


―30―

others—and stock may accumulate in your
hands as well as in ours—there is no spe-
cies of manufacture in which you are for-
bidden to employ it.

But are we not (cried the lady) excluded
from the liberal professions?

Why, that may admit of question. You
have free access, for example, to the ac-
compting-house. It would be somewhat
ludicrous, I own, to see you at the Ex-
change, or superintending the delivery
of a cargo. Yet, this would attract our
notice, merely because it is singular;
not because it is disgraceful or criminal:
but if the singularity be a sufficient ob-
jection, we know that these offices are
not necessary. The profession of a
merchant may be pursued with success
and dignity, without being a constant
visitor of the quay or the coffee-house.
In the trading cities of Europe, there
are bankers and merchants of your sex,


―31―

to whom that consideration is attached,
to which they are entitled by their skill,
their integrity, or their opulence.

But what apology can you make for our
exclusion from the class of physicians?

To a certain extent the exclusion is
imaginary. My grandmother was a to-
lerable physician. She had much personal
experience; and her skill was, I assure you,
in much request among her neighbours. It
is true, she wisely forbore to tamper with
diseases of an uncommon or complicated
nature. Her experience was wholly per-
sonal. But that was accidental. She might
have added, if she had chosen, the expe-
rience of others to her own.

But the law——

True, we are not accustomed to see
female pleaders at the bar. I never wish
to see them there. But the law, as a sci-
ence, is open to their curiosity, or their
benevolence. It may be even practised as


―32―

a source of gain, without obliging us to
frequent and public exhibitions.

Well (said the lady), let us dismiss the
lawyer and physician, and turn our eye
to the pulpit. That, at least, is a sanctuary
which women must not profane.

It is only (replied I) in some sects that
divinity, the business of explaining to men
their religious duty, is a trade. In such,
custom or law, or the canons of their faith,
have confined the pulpit to men: perhaps
the distinction, wherever it is found, is an
article of their religious creed, and, conse-
quently, is no topic of complaint, since the
propriety of this exclusion must be admit-
ted by every member of the sect, whether
male or female. But there are other sects
which admit females into the class of
preachers. With them, indeed, this dis-
tinction, if lucrative at all, is only indi-
rectly so; and its profits are not greater to
one sex than to the other. But there is no


―33―

religious society in which women are de-
barred from the privileges of superior
sanctity. The Christian religion has done
much to level the distinctions of property,
and rank, and sex. Perhaps, in reviewing
the history of mankind, we shall find the
authority derived from a real, or pretended
intercourse with heaven, pretty generally
divided between them. And after all, what
do these restrictions amount to? If some
pursuits are monopolized by men, others
are appropriated to you. If it appear that
your occupations have least of toil, are
most friendly to purity of manners, to de-
licacy of sensation, to intellectual improve-
ment, and activity, or to public usefulness;
if it should appear that your skill is always
in such demand as to afford you employ-
ment when you stand in need of it; if,
though few in number, they may be so
generally and constantly useful, as always
to furnish you subsistence; or, at least, to


―34―

expose you, by their vicissitudes, to the
pressure of want as rarely as it is incident
to men; you cannot reasonably complain:
but, in my opinion, all this is true.

Perhaps not (replied the lady): yet I
must own your statement is plausible. I
shall not take much pains to confute it. It
is evident, that, for some reason or other,
the liberal professions, those which require
most vigour of mind, greatest extent of
knowledge, and most commerce with
books and with enlightened society, are
occupied only by men. If contrary in-
stances occur, they are rare, and must be
considered as exceptions.

Admitting these facts (said I), I do not
see reason for drawing mortifying inferen-
ces from them. For my part, I entertain
but little respect for what are called the li-
beral professions, and, indeed, but little for
any profession whatever. If their motive
be gain, and that it is which constitutes


―35―

them a profession, they seem to be, all of
them, nearly on a level in point of dignity.
The consideration of usefulness is of more
value. He that roots out a national vice,
or checks the ravages of a pestilence, is, no
doubt, a respectable personage: but it is
no man's trade to perform these services.
How does a mercenary divine, or lawyer,
or physician, differ from a dishonest chim-
ney-sweep? The worst that can be dreaded
from a chimney-sweep is the spoiling of
our dinner, or a little temporary alarm;
but what injuries may we not dread from
the abuses of law, medicine, or divinity!
Honesty, you will say, is the best policy.
Whatever it be, it is not the road to wealth.
To the purposes of a profession, as such,
it is not subservient. Degrees, and exami-
nations, and licences, may qualify us for
the trade; but benevolence needs not their
aid to refine its skill, or augment its acti-
vity. Some portion of their time and their


―36―

efforts must be employed by those who
need, in obtaining the means of subsistence.
The less toilsome, boisterous and servile
that task is, which necessity enjoins; the
less tendency it has to harden our hearts,
to benumb our intellects, to undermine our
health. The more leisure it affords us to
gratify our curiosity and cultivate our mo-
ral discernment, the better. Here is a cri-
terion for the choice of a profession, and
which obliges us to consider the condition
of women as preferable.

I cannot perceive it. But it matters
nothing what field may offer, if our
education does not qualify us to range over
it. What think you of female education?
Mine has been frivolous. I can make a pie,
and cut out a gown. For this only I am
indebted to my teachers. If I have added
any thing to these valuable attainments, it
is through my own efforts, and not by the
assistance or encouragement of others.

―37―

And ought it not to be so? What can
render men wise but their own efforts?
Does curiosity derive no encouragement
from the possession of the power and ma-
terials? You are taught to read and to
write: quills, paper, and books are at hand.
Instruments and machines are forthcoming
to those who can purchase them. If you
be insensible to the pleasures and benefits
of knowledge, and are therefore ignorant
and trifling, it is not for want of assistance
and encouragement.

I shall find no difficulty (said the lady)
to admit that the system is not such as to
condemn all women, without exception,
to stupidity. As it is, we have only to la-
ment, that a sentence so unjust is executed
on, by far, the greater number. But you
forget how seldom those who are most
fortunately situated, are permitted to cater
for themselves. Their conduct, in this
case, as in all others, is subject to the


―38―

controul of others who are guided by esta-
blished prejudices, and are careful to re-
member that we are women. They think
a being of this sex is to be instructed in a
manner different from those of another.
Schools, and colleges, and public instruc-
tors are provided in all the abstruse sciences
and learned languages; but whatever may
be their advantages, are not women totally
excluded from them?

It would be prudent (said I), in the first
place, to ascertain the amount of those
advantages, before we indulge ourselves in
lamenting the loss of them. Let us con-
sider whether a public education be not
unfavourable to moral and intellectual im-
provement; or, at least, whether it be
preferable to the domestic method;—whe-
ther most knowledge be obtained by listen-
ing to hired professors, or by reading
books;—whether the abstruse sciences be
best studied in a closet, or a college;—


―39―

whether the ancient tongues be worth
learning;—whether, since languages are
of no use but as avenues to knowledge,
our native tongue, especially in its present
state of refinement, be not the best. Be-
fore we lament the exclusion of women
from colleges, all these points must be
settled: unless they shall be precluded by
reflecting, that places of public education,
which are colleges in all respects but the
name, are, perhaps, as numerous for fe-
males as for males.

They differ (said the lady) from colleges
in this, that a very different plan of in-
struction is followed. I know of no fe-
male school where Latin is taught, or
geometry, or chemistry.

Yet, Madam, there are female geome-
tricians, and chemists, and scholars, not a
few. Were I desirous that my son or
daughter should become either of these, I
should not deem the assistance of a college


―40―

indispensible. Suppose an anatomist
should open his school to pupils of both
sexes, and solicit equally their attendance;
would you comply with the invitation?

No; because that pursuit has no attrac-
tions for me. But if I had a friend whose
curiosity was directed to it, why should I
dissuade her from it?

Perhaps (said I) you are but little ac-
quainted with the real circumstances of
such a scene. If your disdain of prejudices
should prompt you to adventure one visit,
I question whether you would find any in-
clination to repeat it.

Perhaps not (said she); but that mode
of instruction in all the experimental sci-
ences is not, perhaps, the best. A nume-
rous company can derive little benefit
from a dissection in their presence. A
closer and more deliberate inspection than
the circumstances of a large company will
allow, seems requisite. But the assembly


―41―

need not be a mixed one. Objections on
the score of delicacy, though they are
more specious than sound, and owe their
force more to our weakness than our wis-
dom, would be removed by making the
whole company, professor and pupils, fe-
male. But this would be obviating an
imaginary evil, at the price of a real be-
nefit. Nothing has been more injurious
than the separation of the sexes. They
associate in childhood without restraint;
but the period quickly arrives when they
are obliged to take different paths. Ideas,
maxims, and pursuits, wholly opposite,
engross their attention. Different systems
of morality, different languages, or, at
least, the same words with a different set
of meanings, are adopted. All intercourse
between them is fettered and embarrassed.
On one side, all is reserve and artifice.
On the other, adulation and affected hu-
mility. The same end must be compassed


―42―

by opposite means. The man must affect
a disproportionable ardour; while the
woman must counterfeit indifference and
aversion. Her tongue has no office, but
to belie the sentiments of her heart, and
the dictates of her understanding.

By marriage she loses all right to sepa-
rate property. The will of her husband
is the criterion of all her duties. All merit
is comprised in unlimited obedience. She
must not expostulate or rebel. In all con-
tests with him, she must hope to prevail
by blandishments and tears; not by ap-
peals to justice and addresses to reason.
She will be most applauded when she
smiles with most perseverance on her op-
pressor, and when, with the undistin-
guishing attachment of a dog, no caprice
or cruelty shall be able to estrange her
affection.

Surely, Madam, this picture is exag-
gerated. You derive it from some other


―43―

source than your own experience, or even
your own observation.

No; I believe the picture to be gene-
rally exact. No doubt there are excep-
tions. I believe myself to be one. I think
myself exempt from the grosser defects of
women; but by no means free from the
influence of a mistaken education. But
why should you think the picture exag-
gerated? Man is the strongest. This is
the reason why, in the earliest stage of
society, the females are slaves. The ten-
dency of rational improvement is to equa-
lize conditions; to abolish all distinctions,
but those that are founded in truth and
reason; to limit the reign of brute force,
and uncontroulable accidents. Women
have unquestionably benefited by the pro-
gress that has hitherto taken place. If I
look abroad, I may see reason to congra-
tulate myself on being born in this age
and country. Women, that are no where


―44―

totally exempt from servitude, no where
admitted to their true rank in society, may
yet be subject to different degrees or kinds
of servitude. Perhaps there is no coun-
try in the world where the yoke is lighter
than here. But this persuasion, though, in
one view, it may afford us consolation,
ought not to blind us to our true condition,
or weaken our efforts to remove the evils
that still oppress us. It is manifest, that
we are hardly and unjustly treated. The
natives of the most distant regions do not
less resemble each other, than the male
and female of the same tribe, in conse-
quence of the different discipline to which
they are subject. Now, this is palpably
absurd. Men and women are partakers
of the same nature. They are rational be-
ings; and, as such, the same principles of
truth and equity must be applicable to
both.

To this I replied, Certainly, Madam:


―45―

but it is obvious to enquire to which of the
sexes the distinction is most favourable.
In some respects, different paths are allot-
ted to them, but I am apt to suspect that
of the woman to be strewed with fewest
thorns; to be beset with fewest asperities;
and to lead, if not absolutely in conformity
to truth and equity, yet with fewest devia-
tions from it. There are evils incident to
your condition as women. As human be-
ings, we all lie under considerable disad-
vantages; but it is of an unequal lot that
you complain. The institutions of society
have injuriously and capriciously distin-
guished you. True it is, laws, which have
commonly been male births, have treated
you unjustly; but it has been with that
species of injustice that has given birth to
nobles and kings. They have distinguished
you by irrational and undeserved indulgen-
ces. They have exempted you from a thou-
sand toils and cares. Their tenderness has


―46―

secluded you from tumult and noise: your
persons are sacred from profane violences;
your eyes from ghastly spectacles;
your ears from a thousand discords, by which
ours are incessantly invaded. Yours are
the peacefullest recesses of the mansion:
your hours glide along in sportive chat, in
harmless recreation, or voluptuous indo-
lence; or in labours so light, as scarcely to
be termed encroachments on the reign of
contemplation. Your industry delights in
the graceful and minute: it enlarges the
empire of the senses, and improves the
flexibility of the fibres. The art of the
needle, by the lustre of its hues and the
delicacy of its touches, is able to mimic
all the forms of nature, and pourtray all
the images of fancy: and the needle but
prepares the hand for doing wonders on the
harp; for conjuring up the ‘piano’ to
melt, and the ‘forte’ to astound us.

This (cried the lady) is a very partial


―47―

description. It can apply only to the opu-
lent, and but to few of them. Meanwhile,
how shall we estimate the hardships of the
lower class? You have only pronounced
a panegyric on indolence and luxury.
Eminent virtue and true happiness are not
to be found in this element.

True (returned I). I have only at-
tempted to justify the male sex from the
charge of cruelty. Ease and luxury are
pernicious. Kings and nobles, the rich
and the idle, enjoy no genuine content.
Their lot is hard enough; but still it is bet-
ter than brutal ignorance and unintermitted
toil; than nakedness and hunger. There
must be one condition of society that ap-
proaches nearer than any other to the
standard of rectitude and happiness. For
this it is our duty to search; and, having
found it, endeavour to reduce every other
condition to this desirable mean. It is use-
ful, meanwhile, to ascertain the relative


―48―

importance of different conditions; and
since deplorable evils are annexed to every
state, to discover in what respects, and in
what degree, one is more or less eligible
than another. Half of the community are
females. Let the whole community be
divided into classes; and let us inquire,
whether the wives, and daughters, and sin-
gle women, of each class, be not placed in
a more favourable situation than the hus-
bands, sons, and single men, of the same
class. Our answer will surely be in the
affirmative.

There is (said the lady) but one import-
ant question relative to this subject. Are
women as high in the scale of social feli-
city and usefulness as they may and ought
to be?

To this (said I) there can be but one
answer: No. At present they are only
higher on that scale than the men. You
will observe, Madam, I speak only of that


―49―

state of society which we enjoy. If you
had excluded sex from the question, I
must have made the same answer. Hu-
man beings, it is to be hoped, are destined
to a better condition on this stage, or some
other, than is now allotted them.

―51―

ALCUIN.

PART II.

THIS remark was succeeded by a pause
on both sides. The lady seemed more in-
clined to listen than talk. At length I
ventured to resume the conversation.

Pray, Madam, permit me to return from
this impertinent digression, and repeat my
question—“Are you a federalist?”

And let me (she replied) repeat my an-
swer—What have I, as a woman, to do
with politics? Even the government of
our country, which is said to be the freest
in the world, passes over women as if they
were not. We are excluded from all poli-
tical rights without the least ceremony.
Law-makers thought as little of compre-
hending us in their code of liberty, as if


―52―

we were pigs, or sheep. That females are
exceptions to their general maxims, per-
haps never occurred to them. If it did,
the idea was quietly discarded, without
leaving behind the slightest consciousness
of inconsistency or injustice. If to uphold
and defend, as far as woman's little power
extends, the constitution, against violence;
if to prefer a scheme of union and confe-
deracy, to war and dissention, entitle me
to that name, I may justly be stiled a fe-
deralist. But if that title be incompatible
with a belief that, in many particulars, this
constitution is unjust and absurd, I cer-
tainly cannot pretend to it. But how
should it be otherwise? While I am con-
scious of being an intelligent and moral
being; while I see myself denied, in so
many cases, the exercise of my own dis-
cretion, incapable of separate property;
subject, in all periods of my life, to the
will of another, on whose bounty


―53―

I am made to depend for food, raiment, and shel-
ter: when I see myself, in my relation to
society, regarded merely as a beast, or an
insect; passed over, in the distribution of
public duties, as absolutely nothing, by
those who disdain to assign the least apo-
logy for their injustice—what though poli-
ticians say I am nothing, it is impossible I
should assent to their opinion, as long as
I am conscious of willing and moving. If
they generously admit me into the class of
existences, but affirm that I exist for no
purpose but the convenience of the more
dignified sex; that I cannot be entrusted
with the government of myself; that to
foresee, to deliberate and decide, belongs
to others, while all my duties resolve them-
selves into this precept, “listen and obey;”
it is not for me to smile at their tyranny,
or receive, as my gospel, a code built upon
such atrocious maxims. No, I am no
federalist.

―54―

You are, at least (said I), a severe and
uncommon censor. You assign most ex-
traordinary reasons for your political here-
sy. You have many companions in your
aversion to the government, but, I sus-
pect, are wholly singular in your motives.
There are few, even among your own sex,
who reason in this manner.

Very probably; thoughtless and servile
creatures! but that is not wonderful. All
despotism subsists by virtue of the errors
and supineness of its slaves. If their dis-
cernment was clear, their persons would
be free. Brute strength has no part in the
government of multitudes: they are bound
in the fetters of opinion.

The maxims of constitution-makers
sound well. All power is derived from
the people. Liberty is every one's birth-
right. Since all cannot govern or delibe-
rate individually, it is just that they should
elect their representatives. That every


―55―

one should possess, indirectly, and through
the medium of his representatives, a voice
in the public councils; and should yield to
no will but that of an actual or virtual
majority. Plausible and specious maxims!
but fallacious. What avails it to be told
by any one, that he is an advocate for li-
berty? we must first know what he means
by the word. We shall generally find
that he intends only freedom to himself,
and subjection to all others. Suppose I
place myself where I can conveniently
mark the proceedings at a general election:
“All,” says the code, “are free. Li-
berty is the immediate gift of the Creator
to all mankind, and is unalienable. Those
that are subject to the laws should possess
a share in their enaction. This privilege
can be exercised, consistently with the
maintenance of social order, in a large so-
ciety, only in the choice of deputies” A
person advances with his ticket. “Pray,”


―56―

says the officer, “are you twenty-one years
of age?”—“No.”—“Then I cannot re-
ceive your vote; you are no citizen.”
Disconcerted and abashed, he retires. A
second assumes his place. “How long,”
says the officer, “have you been an inha-
bitant of this State?”—“Nineteen months
and a few days.”—“None has a right to
vote who has not completed two years
residence.” A third approaches, who is
rejected because his name is not found in
the catalogue of taxables. At length room
is made for a fourth person. “Man,”
cries the magistrate, “is your skin black
or white?”—“Black.”—“What, a sooty
slave dare to usurp the rights of freemen?”
The way being now clear, I venture to
approach. “I am not a minor,” say I to
myself. “I was born in the state, and
cannot, therefore, be stigmatized as a fo-
reigner. I pay taxes, for I have no father
or husband to pay them for me. Luckily


―57―

my complexion is white. Surely my vote
will be received. But, no, I am a woman.
Neither short residence, nor poverty, nor
age, nor colour, nor sex, exempt from the
jurisdiction of the laws.” “True,” says
the magistrate; “but they deprive you
from bearing any part in their formation.”
“So I perceive, but I cannot perceive the
justice of your pretentions to equality and
liberty, when those principles are thus
openly and grossly violated.”

If a stranger question me concerning
the nature of our government, I answer,
that in this happy climate all men are free:
the people are the source of all authority;
from them it flows, and to them, in due
season, it returns. But in what (says my
friend) does this unrivalled and precious
freedom consist? Not (say I) in every
man's governing himself, literally and in-
dividually; that is impossible. Not in the
controul of an actual majority; they are


―58―

by much too numerous to deliberate com-
modiously, or decide expeditiously. No,
our liberty consists in the choice of our
governors: all, as reason requires, have a
part in this choice, yet not without a few
exceptions: for, in the first place, all fe-
males are excepted. They, indeed, com-
pose one half of the community; but, no
matter, women cannot possibly have any
rights. Secondly, those whom the feudal
law calls minors, because they could not
lift a shield, or manage a pike, are except-
ed. They comprehend one half of the re-
mainder. Thirdly, the poor. These vary
in number, but are sure to increase with
the increase of luxury and opulence, and
to promote these is well known to be the
aim of all wise governors. Fourthly, those
who have not been two years in the land:
and, lastly, slaves. It has been sagely de-
creed, that none but freemen shall enjoy
this privilege, and that all men are free but


―59―

those that are slaves. When all these are
sifted out, a majority of the remainder are
entitled to elect our governor; provided,
however, the candidate possess certain
qualifications, which you will excuse me
from enumerating. I am tired of explain-
ing this charming system of equality and
independence. Let the black, the young,
the poor, and the stranger, support their
own claims. I am a woman. As such, I
cannot celebrate the equity of that scheme
of government which classes me with dogs
and swine.

In this representation (said I) it must
be allowed there is some truth; but do you
sufficiently distinguish between the form
and spirit of a government? The true con-
dition of a nation cannot be described in a
few words; nor can it be found in the vo-
lumes of their laws. We know little or
nothing when our knowledge extends no
farther than the forms of the constitution.


―60―

As to any direct part they bear in the go-
vernment, the women of Turky, and Russia,
and America, are alike; but, surely, their
actual condition, their dignity, and free-
dom, are very different. The value of
any government lies in the mode under which
it is exercised. If we consent to be ruled
by another, our liberty may still remain
inviolate, or be infringed only when supe-
rior wisdom directs. Our master may go-
vern us agreeably to our own ideas, or
may restrain and enforce us only when
our own views are mistaken.

No government is independent of popu-
lar opinion. By that it must necessarily be
sustained and modified. In the worst des-
potism there is a sphere of discretion allotted
to each man, which political authority must
not violate. How much soever is relin-
quished by the people, somewhat is always
reserved. The chief purpose of the wise
is to make men their own governors, to


―61―

persuade them to practise the rules of equi-
ty without legal constraint: they will try
to lessen the quantity of government, with-
out changing or multiplying the deposito-
ries of it; to diminish the number of those
cases in which authority is required to in-
terfere. We need not complain of the
injustice of laws, if we refrain, or do not
find it needful to appeal to them: if we
decide amicably our differences, or refer
them to an umpire of our own choice: if
we trust not to the subtilty of lawyers, and
the prejudice of judges, but to our own
eloquence, and a tribunal of our neigh-
bours. It matters not what power the laws
give me over the property or persons of
others, if I do not chuse to avail myself
of the privilege.

Then (said the lady) you think that
forms of government are no subjects of
contest. It matters not by whom power
is possessed, or how it is transferred; whe-


―62―

ther we bestow our allegiance on a child
or a lunatic; whether kings be made by
the accident of birth or wealth; whether
supreme power be acquired by force, or
transmitted by inheritance, or conferred
freely and periodically by the suffrages of
all that acknowledge its validity?

Doubtless (replied I) these considera-
tions are of some moment; but cannot you
distinguish between power and the exercise
of power, and see that the importance of
the first is derived wholly from the consi-
deration of the last?

But how it shall be exercised (rejoined
she) depends wholly on the views and ha-
bits of him that has it. Avails it nothing
whether the prince be mild or austere, ma-
lignant or benevolent? If we must delegate
authority, are we not concerned to repose
it with him who will use it to the best, ra-
ther than the worst purposes? True it is,
we should retain as much power over our


―63―

own conduct, maintain the sphere of our
own discretion, as large and as inviolate as
possible. But we must, as long as we as-
sociate with mankind, forego, in some par-
ticulars, our self-government, and submit
to the direction of another; but nothing
interests me more nearly than a wise choice
of a master. The wisest member of so-
ciety should, if possible, be selected for the
guidance of the rest.

If an hundred persons be in want of a
common dwelling, and the work cannot
be planned or executed by the whole, from
the want of either skill or unanimity, what
is to be done? We must search out one
who will do that which the circumstances
of the case will not allow us to do for our-
selves. Is it not obvious to enquire who
among us possesses most skill, and most
virtue to controul him in the use of it?
Or shall we lay aside all regard to skill and
integrity, and consider merely who is the


―64―

tallest, or richest, or fairest among us, or
admit his title that can prove that such an
one was his father, or that he himself is
the eldest among the children of his father?
In an affair which is of common concern,
shall we consign the province of deciding
to a part, or yield to the superior claims
of a majority? If it happen that the smaller
number be distinguished by more accurate
discernment, or extensive knowledge, and,
consequently, he that is chosen by the
wiser few, will probably be, in himself
considered, more worthy than the favourite
of the injudicious many; yet what is the
criterion which shall enable us to distin-
guish the sages from the fools? And, when
the selection is made, what means shall we
use for expunging from the catalogue all
those whom age has enfeebled, or flattery
or power corrupted? If all this were ef-
fected, could we, at the same time, exclude
evils from our system, by which its bene-


―65―

fits would be overweighed? Of all modes
of government, is not the sovereignty of
the people, however incumbered with in-
conveniencies, yet attended by the fewest?

It is true (answered I) that one form of
government may tend more than another
to generate selfishness and tyranny in him
that rules, and ignorance and profligacy in
the subjects. If different forms be submit-
ted to our choice, we should elect that
which deserves the preference. Suppose
our countrymen would be happier if they
were subdivided into a thousand little inde-
pendent democratical republics, than they
are under their present form, or than they
would be under an hereditary despot: then
it behoves us to inquire by what, if by any
means, this subdivision may be effected,
and, which is matter of equal moment,
how it can be maintained: but these, for
the most part, are airy speculations. If not
absolutely hurtful, they are injurious, by


―66―

being of inferior utility to others which
they exclude. If women be excluded from
political functions, it is sufficient that, in
this exercise of these functions, their hap-
piness is amply consulted.

Say what you will (cried the lady), I
shall ever consider it as a gross abuse that
we are hindered from sharing with you in
the power of chusing our rulers, and of
making those laws to which we equally
with yourselves are subject.

We claim the power (rejoined I); this
cannot be denied; but I must maintain,
that as long as it is equitably exercised, no
alteration is desirable. Shall the young,
the poor, the stranger, and the females, be
admitted indiscriminately to political pri-
vileges? Shall we annex no condition to
a voter but that he be a thing in human
shape, not lunatic, and capable of loco-
motion; and no qualifications to a candi-
date but the choice of a majority? Would


―67―

any benefit result from the change? Will
it augment the likelihood that the choice
will fall upon the wisest? Will it endow
the framers and interpreters of law with
more sagacity and moderation than they
at present possess?

Perhaps not (said she). I plead only for
my own sex. Want of property, youth,
and servile condition, may, possibly, be
well founded objections; but mere sex is
a circumstance so purely physical; has so
little essential influence beyond what has
flowed from the caprice of civil institutions
on the qualities of mind or person, that I
cannot think of it without impatience. If
the laws should exclude from all political
functions every one who had a mole on
his right cheek, or whose stature did not
exceed five feet six inches, who would not
condemn, without scruple, so unjust an in-
stitution? yet, in truth, the injustice would
be less than in the case of women. The


―68―

distinction is no less futile, but the injury
is far greater, since it annihilates the po-
litical existence of at least one half of the
community.

But you appeared to grant (said I) that
want of property and servile condition are
allowable disqualifications. Now, may
not marriage be said to take away both the
liberty and property of women? at least,
does it not bereave them of that independ-
ent judgment which it is just to demand
from a voter?

Not universally the property (answered
she): so far as it has the effect you men-
tion, was there ever any absurdity more pal-
pable, any injustice more flagrant? But you
well know there are cases in which women,
by marriage, do not relinquish their pro-
perty. All women, however, are not wives
and wards. Granting that such are disquali-
fied, what shall we say of those who are in-
disputably single, affluent and independent?


―69―

Against these, no objection, in the slightest
degree plausible, can be urged. It would
be strange folly to suppose women of this
class to be necessarily destitute of those
qualities which the station of a citizen re-
quires. We have only to examine the pre-
tentions of those who already occupy pub-
lic stations. Most of them seem not to
have attained heights inaccessible to ordi-
nary understandings; and yet the delega-
tion of a woman, however opulent and en-
lightened, would, probably, be a more in-
supportable shock to the prejudices that
prevail among us, than the appointment of
a youth of fifteen, or a beggar, or a stran-
ger.

If this innovation be just (said I), the
period for making it has not arrived. You,
Madam, are singular. Women in general
do not reason in this manner. They are
contented with the post assigned them. If
the rights of a citizen were extended to


―70―

them, they would not employ them—stay
till they desire it.

If they were wise (returned the lady),
they would desire it: meanwhile it is an
act of odious injustice to withhold it. This
privilege is their due. By what means
have you discovered that they would not
exercise it, if it were granted? You cannot
imagine but that some would step forth and
occupy this station, when the obstruction
was removed.

I know little of women (said I); I have
seldom approached them, much less have
I enjoyed their intimate society; yet, as a
specimen of the prejudice you spoke of, I
must own I should be not a little surprized
to hear of a woman proferring her services
as president or senator. It would be hard
to restrain a smile to see her rise in a po-
pular assembly to discuss some mighty to-
pic. I should gaze as at a prodigy, and
listen with a doubting heart: yet I might


―71―

not refuse devotion to the same woman in
the character of household deity. As a mo-
ther pressing a charming babe to her bo-
som; as my companion in the paths of
love, or poetry, or science; as partaker with
me in content, and an elegant sufficiency,
her dignity would shine forth in full splen-
dour. Here all would be decency and grace.
But as a national ruler; as busied in poli-
tical intrigues and cares; as intrenched in
the paper mounds of a secretary; as bur-
thened with the gravity of a judge; as
bearing the standard in battle; or, even as
a champion in senatorial warfare, it would
be difficult to behold her without regret and
disapprobation. These emotions I should
not pretend to justify; but such, and so
difficult to vanquish, is prejudice.

Prejudices, countenanced by an experi-
ence so specious and universal, cannot be
suddenly subdued. I shall tell you, how-
ever, my genuine and deliberate opinion


―72―

on the subject. I have said that the inequa-
lity of the sexes was all that could be ad-
mitted; that the superiority we deny to
men can, with as little justice, be ascribed
to women; but this, in the strictest sense,
is not true: on the contrary, it must be al-
lowed that women are superior.

We cannot fail to distinguish between
the qualities of mind and those of person.
Whatever be the relation between the
thinking principle, and the limbs and organs
of the body, it is manifest that they are
distinct; insomuch, that when we pass
judgment on the qualities of the former,
the latter is not necessarily taken into view,
or included in it. So, when we discourse
of our exterior and sensible qualities, we
are supposed to exclude from our present
consideration, the endowments of the mind.
This distinction is loose, but sufficiently
accurate for my purpose.

Have we not abundant reason to con-


―73―

clude that the principle of thought is, in
both sexes, the same; that it is subject to
like influences; that like motives and situ-
ations produce like effects? We are not
concerned to know which of the sexes has
occupied the foremost place on the stage
of human life. They would not be beings
of the same nature in whom different causes
produced like effects. It is sufficient that
we can trace diversity in the effects to a
corresponding diversity in the circumstan-
ces; that women are such as observation
exhibits them, in consequence of those
laws which belong to a rational being,
and which are common to both sexes: but
such, beyond all doubt, must be the result
of our inquiries. In this respect, then, the
sexes are equal.

But what opinion must be formed of
their exterior or personal qualities? Are
not the members and organs of the female
body as aptly suited to their purposes as


―74―

those of the male? The same, indeed, may
be asserted of a mouse or a grass-hopper;
but are not these purposes as wise and dig-
nified, nay, are they not precisely the same?
Considering the female frame as the subject
of impressions, and the organ of intelli-
gence, it appears to deserve the preference.
What shall we say of the acuteness and
variety of your sensations; of the smooth-
ness, flexibility, and compass of your
voice?

Beauty is a more doubtful quality. Few men
will scruple to resign the superiority in this
respect to women. The truth of this de-
cision may be, perhaps, physically demon-
strated; or, perhaps, all our reasonings are
vitiated, by this circumstance, that the rea-
soner and his auditors are male. We all
know in what the sexual distinction con-
sists, and what is the final cause of this
distinction. It is easier to conceive than
describe that species of attraction which


―75―

sex annexes to the person. It would be
fallacious, perhaps, to infer female superio-
rity, in an absolute and general sense, from
the devotion which, in certain cases, we are
prone to pay them; which it is impossible
to feel for one of our own sex; and which
is mutually felt: yet, methinks, the infer-
ence is inevitable. When I reflect on the
equality of mind, and attend to the feelings
which are roused in my bosom by the pre-
sence of accomplished and lovely women;
by the mere graces of their exterior, even
when the magic of their voice sleeps, and
the eloquence of eyes is mute;—and,
for the reality of these feelings, if politeness
did not forbid, I might quote the experience
of the present moment—I am irresistibly
induced to believe, that, of the two sexes,
yours is, on the whole, superior.

It is difficult, I know, to reason dispas-
sionately on this subject: witness the uni-
versal persuasion of mankind, that in grace,


―76―

symmetry, and melody, the preference is due
to women. Yet, beside that opinion is no
criterion of truth but to him that harbours
it, when I call upon all human kind as wit-
nesses, it is only one half of them, the in-
dividuals of one sex, that obey my call.

It may at first appear that men have ge-
nerally ascribed intellectual pre-eminence
to themselves. Nothing, however, can be
inferred from this. It is doubtful whether
they judge rightly on the question of what
is or is not intrinsically excellent. Not
seldom they have placed their superiority in
that which, rightly understood, should have
been pregnant with ignominy and humili-
ation. Should women themselves be found
to concur in the belief, that the other sex
surpasses them in intelligence, it will avail
but little. We must still remember that
opinion is evidence of nothing but its own
existence. This opinion, indeed, is pe-
culiarly obnoxious. They merely repeat


―77―

what they have been taught; and their
teachers have been men. The prevalence
of this opinion, if it does not evince the
incurable defects of female capacity, may,
at least, be cited to prove in how mourn-
ful a degree that capacity has been neglect-
ed or perverted. It is a branch of that
prejudice which has so long darkened the
world, and taught men that nobles and
kings were creatures of an order superior
to themselves.

Here the conversation was interrupted
by one of the company, who, after listen-
ing to us for some time, thought proper at
last to approach, and contribute his mite
to our mutual edification. I soon after
seized an opportunity of withdrawing, but
not without requesting and obtaining per-
mission to repeat my visit.

―78―

Since the last page of these two Parts
of “Alcuin” were put to press, the Editor
has received, from the Author, the third and
fourth Parts. They are considerably more
lengthy than those now published; but it is
proposed to deliver them to Subscribers on
the same terms. Such persons, therefore, as
are desirous of continuing their subscriptions
are requested to leave their names with the
Editor, or with the printers.
April 24.