目录

封面

译者序

前言

作者小传

致前奥顿主教塔列朗·佩里戈的一封信

第一章 论人类的权利和义务

第二章 论关于两性特质的普遍成见

第三章 再论关于两性特质的普遍成见

第四章 论导致女性堕落的各种原因

第五章 反驳某些对于女性抱有近乎侮辱的怜悯态度的作家

第六章 论早期观念联想对性格的影响

第七章 论谦逊端庄：在广泛意义上的讨论而非仅局限于女性德行的角度

第八章 因性别而决定良好名声对于一个人的重要性会有损于道德

第九章 论不合理的社会差异所造成的有害影响

第十章 论父母之爱

第十一章 论父母之责

第十二章 论国民教育

第十三章 由女性的无知所造成的一些愚蠢行为的例子；结束语：我们可以顺理成章地期待在女性风貌的变革中看到她们道德的进步

译者后记一

译者后记二

A BRIEF SKETCH OF THE LIFE OF MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT.

TO M. TALLEYRAND PERIGORD, LATE BISHOP OF AUTUN.

INTRODUCTION.

CHAPTER 1. THE RIGHTS AND INVOLVED DUTIES OF MANKIND CONSIDERED.

CHAPTER 2. THE PREVAILING OPINION OF A SEXUAL CHARACTER DISCUSSED.

CHAPTER 3. THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

CHAPTER 4. OBSERVATIONS ON THE STATE OF DEGRADATION TO WHICH WOMAN IS REDUCED BY VARIOUS CAUSES.

CHAPTER 5. ANIMADVERSIONS ON SOME OF THE WRITERS WHO HAVE RENDERED WOMEN OBJECTS OF PITY, BORDERING ON CONTEMPT.

CHAPTER 6. THE EFFECT WHICH AN EARLY ASSOCIATION OF IDEAS HAS UPON THE CHARACTER.

CHAPTER 7. MODESTY COMPREHENSIVELY CONSIDERED AND NOT AS A SEXUAL VIRTUE.

CHAPTER 8. MORALITY UNDERMINED BY SEXUAL NOTIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF A GOOD REPUTATION.

CHAPTER 9. OF THE PERNICIOUS EFFECTS WHICH ARISE FROM THE UNNATURAL DISTINCTIONS ESTABLISHED IN SOCIETY.

CHAPTER 10. PARENTAL AFFECTION.

CHAPTER 11. DUTY TO PARENTS.

CHAPTER 12. ON NATIONAL EDUCATION.

CHAPTER 13.SOME INSTANCES OF THE FOLLY WHICH THE IGNORANCE OF WOMEN GENERATES; WITH CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS ON THE MORAL IMPROVEMENT THAT A REVOLUTION IN FEMALE MANNERS MIGHT NATURALLY BE EXPECTED TO PRODUCE.

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

封面

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

译者序

玛丽·沃斯通克拉夫特于1792年写作并出版了《为女权辩护：关于政治及道德问题的批判（A Vindication of the Rights of Woman： with Strictures On Political and Moral Subjects）》一书。有人将之誉为女权主义的开山之作，但也有人认为是否应将此书归于女权主义的范畴尚需斟酌。

其实，英语中直到1890年代才出现了我们现在所使用的“女权主义”（feminism）及“女权主义者”（feminist）这两个名词。在之后的一百多年中，这两个名词逐渐被越来越多的人所知道和使用。无论在东方还是西方，它们所产生和传播的年代，都是男性主导社会发展、并且在很大程度上主宰女性命运的时代。“女权”主张的出现，挑战了男性的权威，也因而像其他那些被压迫群体的权利主张一样，引起了既得利益者的强烈反对。其中很重要的一种手段就是为这个主张贴上各种名不副实的标签，通过歪曲其原本的含义，来阻止人们对它的接受和认同；例如将女权主义等同于“仇男主义”、说女权主义者都是“想要爬到男人头上的丑女”。

玛丽写作此书是在“女权”相关的名词出现之前，我们可以也应当剥除掉当今人们对于“女权”的理解以及附着于其上的各种标签，就只是在玛丽所使用的“女权”含义（the rights of woman，意为“女性的权利”）之下来阅读和思考这本书。

玛丽在此书中的评论几乎涉及到了当时女性生活的每个方面，但她将最大篇幅的笔墨用在了剖析社会上流行的性别偏见以及检视女性所接受的教育这两个问题之上。她指出，社会为男性和女性制定了不同的道德准则，并在此原则的指导之下只提供给女性残缺而愚昧的教育。这种教育不但不能促进女性的发展，还扼杀了她们天赋的才能，让女性作为一个整体不可避免地在成年之后成为孱弱而缺乏理性的人，从而使得她们没有能力去争取与男性平等的地位。在这样的教育之下，因为女性的表现低劣就认定她们生来便与才华和美德无缘是不公正的，因为任何处在相似环境之下的人都会变为像她们一样的人。

从行文风格来看，玛丽的这部作品真挚而饱含激情，但却绝不会被情绪所左右。相反，她的论述逻辑清晰、排布得宜、文字质朴而流畅。所谓人如其文，我们不妨在这里摘录几段玛丽的文字，来为她画一幅小像。

在那个普遍认为女性要依赖男性才能生存的年代，玛丽在书中开宗明义地写道：“我一向认为自立是人生中所能拥有的最大福祉，是一切美德的基础；即使我生活在一片贫瘠的不毛之地，哪怕我的其他欲望都不能满足，我也要坚决捍卫我的独立。”她这样说，也这样做。她靠开办学校、从事编辑和写作工作来维持自己与家人的生活。在与美国人吉尔伯特·伊姆利的感情关系中，她选择放弃与自己的爱人缔结婚约，因为她的家庭经济窘迫，如果他们结婚，伊姆利就要分担她家的经济压力。玛丽对于独立的坚持与维护，由此可见一斑。

在探讨女性与男性的关系时，玛丽无意去仰视或俯视另一个性别，她说：“我对男性抱有一种平等的爱。男性的特权，无论是真实的还是篡夺的，都无法令我低头，除非他们的理性值得我的尊敬；而即使我顺从，对象也是理性，而不是某一个人。”这句话清晰地表明，至少在玛丽这里，“女权”与“仇男”是完全风马牛不相及的两个概念。事实上，女性的权利与任何“仇恨”都没有关系，它真正的源头来自于一个人对理性的热爱和对自我的尊重。

更为难得的是，玛丽身为女性，可是她作此辩护并非仅仅出于对女性利益的考虑，她的目标在于推进整个社会文明取得真正的进步。因为：“要求女性驯服的观点，反过来也会作用于男性……男性屈从于上位者的权势，以换取刹那的欢愉——女性不过做了和他们相同的事情。”推而论之，一个男性与女性平等相处的社会，也将会是一个大多数社会成员彼此之间关系更加平等的社会。

玛丽在书中充分地表达了对当时女性境遇的同情，也公允地指出了她们在性格、品德以及身体素质等方面的不足。在她看来，要改变这样的现状，必须从改进儿童所接受的教育着手，因此她用了大量的篇幅来阐述她对于学校教育及家庭教育的观点。在讨论父母双亲在教养孩子上的分工问题时，她指出父亲在孩子的成长中严重缺位，而母亲则由于没能接受完备的教育而不具备善尽教养后代责任所必需的能力：“既然人们坚持认为养育子女、为下一代打下身心健康的基础，是女性特有的责任，那么让她们变得无能而愚蠢，就是违背事实常理的……许多男士致力于培育马匹，并且会亲自过问马厩的管理；可是很奇怪的是，他们竟然会如此地缺乏理性和情感，以致于认为在照管孩子上面花费任何心思都会降低他们的身份！”她所描述的情形，与中国传统的严父慈母、男外女内的家庭教育模式何其相似。时至今日，传统观念已经远不及过去根深蒂固，但是中国的父亲和男性陪伴孩子成长的意愿和程度，仍然远远不能与母亲和女性相提并论。

即便是那些参与到孩子教育中的父母，也并不一定就是合格的教导者，玛丽评论说：“极少有父母会真正同他们的孩子这样讲话：‘在你能够自己做出判断之前，服从我对你是有好处的；……当你的心智达到成熟，你只需在我的意见与你自己的意见相一致时，才服从它，或者更准确地说，是尊重它。‘”可是直到现在，就在我们每个人的身边，仍然有多少父母只因为自己生养了孩子就理所当然地将他们的一生视作可以任由自己支配的财产！

在这些文字当中，我们看到了一位完全超前于她的时代的天才，并且她的很多观点即使是在当下看来也全然不嫌落伍。这当然证明了玛丽的才华与眼光都高蹈于世；可是，在另一方面它也表明，无论是在西方还是东方，女性所面临处境并没有本质上的差异，从过去到现在，它也尚未发生根本性的变革。这也是为什么在两个多世纪之后，我们仍然需要玛丽和她的作品的原因。

其实此书之前在国内已有数个全译本和节译本发行，其中不乏大家之作。前辈的版本多以忠于原著而见长，端庄严谨。可是在互联网时代时间日趋碎片化的背景之下，大部分读者更加倾向于阅读风格平易简洁的文字。原书中大量酣畅淋漓的长句，在翻译过来之后，若不加对其结构进行一定的调整，反而可能会给读者的阅读带来一定的障碍。我们心中对于此书深有共鸣，希望它能够被尽可能多的人看到，于是才有此次不揣冒昧，重译经典。在翻译的过程中，尤其是在处理原文中较为复杂的句子结构和相对冷僻的典故习语时，我们会尽可能地将之调整为更加贴合汉语语言习惯的行文方式；我们也非常希望，能够听到读者及前辈们对这种尝试的点评和建议。

金无足赤，玛丽与她的作品自然也有其局限与偏颇的地方。何况我们与她之间还隔着两个世纪的时光以及东西文化的鸿沟，当然更难免在某些观点上会感觉有所隔膜，甚至是完全立场相左。但读书有如交友，怎会永远都能言和意顺、略无参商？也正是在那些与朋友、与作者相互切磋琢磨的过程中，我们更加了解与坚定了自己内心真正的所思所想，也让思维得以不断地发展和成长。

希望这本书能够为你带来一些思考、一些温暖、一些勇气。

最后，感谢译言古登堡计划给我们机会翻译《为女权辩护》一书，感谢各位前辈编译者的作品带给我们的启迪，感谢在翻译的过程中给予我们帮助、鼓励和督促的各位亲朋同好，没有大家就不会有我们的这一次尝试。

本书译者

2014年4月

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

前言

我焦虑不安地研究了历史记载和世界的现状，感到忧郁、悲愤和沮丧。我感慨万千但却必须承认：要么是造物使人生而如此不同，要么是我们这个世界当前所发展出来的文明异常地不公。我阅读各种讨论教育问题的书籍，悉心观察父母的行为与学校的管理情况。我得出了什么结论？——我深信，对于我的女性同胞的教育的忽视是造成这种令我悲叹的不幸的重要原因，尤其是我们基于一些草率的结论而做出的种种言行，让女性变得软弱可悲。事实上，女性的行为举止已经清楚地表明，她们的思维并不健康。她们就像是在过于肥沃的土壤里培育出来的花木一样，生命的力量和实用的价值都让位于外表的美丽。那些绚丽的枝叶，在愉悦了挑剔的观者之后，在远没有到达正常的成熟时节之前，便已凋谢并因而被冷落漠视。我认为，错误的教育体系是导致女性这种华而不实状态的原因之一。这个体系建立在一系列由男性所撰写的相关书籍之上，这些作者视女性为女人而非独立的人，乐于看到她们成为迷人的情人而非深情的妻子和理智的母亲。他们对这种华而不实的状态的推崇，蒙蔽了女性的心智，以至于现代的文明女性，除了少数例外，都只顾着激起男性的爱慕，而她们本来应该怀有更高尚的理想，并且因能力和美德而赢得尊重。

因此，在讨论女性权利和行为的著作中，那些专为女性的进步所著的作品是不可忽视的。尤其是有些作品直言不讳地指出，矫揉造作的行为让女性意志薄弱，而男性精英们所撰写的教科书则带有和那些等而下之的作品同样的倾向：按照正统的伊斯兰风俗，女性仅仅被看作是雌性生物，而非人类的一部分，同时性别之间细微的不同被夸大为本质性的差异，借此将男性抬高到众生之上，再往他软弱的手里塞上一把所谓的“天赋的权杖”。

虽然，作为一名女性，我并不想让读者认为我有意热议诸如女性的平等地位或女性低人一等的地位这一类充满争议的问题，但是，问题已经摆在我的面前，我不能忽略它，那会让人误解我的主要思想。因此，我稍停片刻，简要地说明我对这个问题的观点。在物质世界的体系里，总体来说，可以看到雌性在体力上相对于雄性处于劣势。雄性追逐，雌性臣服——这是自然的法则。这个法则看来不会为了让境况变得对女性有利而被中止或废除。雄性在体格上的优势无可否认，这是天赋予男性的高贵特权！但是男性并不满足于这种优势，他们还想把我们女性贬抑得更低，让我们仅仅成为昙花一现的玩物。而女性，被男性出于肉欲的崇拜爱慕冲昏了头脑，并不去追寻在他们心中获得永久的地位，或者成为他们乐于交往的同胞朋友。

我注意到一种显而易见的观点：我时刻都能听到反对拥有男子气概的女性的呼声。但是要到哪里去找这样的女性呢？如果男性是打着这个旗号去攻击她们对于狩猎、射击和赌博的热情，我会热忱地与他们一道呼吁，但是，如果这是为了反对她们模仿有男子气概的美德，或者更确切地说，为了反对女性通过习练获得那些能够令人类品行更加高贵的才能和品德，反对她们借此成为更高尚的生物、作为一个群体更配得上被称为是人类的话——那么我想，凡是以冷静的眼光来看待这件事的人，一定会和我一样，希望她们能够日益赋予男子气概。

讨论至此，问题自然分化为两个方面。首先，我在考虑问题的时候要将女性当作是高贵的人，认为她们和男性一样，来到这个世界是为了展现她们的才能。其次，我要更具体地指出她们所独有的使命。

我希望可以避免许多可敬的作家都曾犯过的一个错误：除了散落在《桑福德和莫顿》一书中少数的隐晦建议外，对于女性的指导多是针对于贵族女性的。但是我要坚定地告诉女性同胞，我更注重中产阶级的女性，因为她们显现出了最接近自然的本色状态。也许那些矫揉造作、放荡虚荣的种子就是由贵族所播下的。软弱造作的人们渴求超越了人类正常所需的物质和感情，他们那过早成熟且违背自然的成长方式败坏了最基本的道德，向整个社会传播着堕落的风气。贵族女性是人类之中最值得怜悯的一个群体！贵族教育让她们变得空虚无助，成长中的心灵由于缺乏对那些赋予人类尊严的职责的践行，而无法变得坚强。她们活着只为了享乐，而自然的法则是——“种瓜得瓜，种豆得豆”，于是她们很快就只能享受空洞乏味的乐趣了。

总之，我的计划就是要对社会各个阶层女性的道德品质逐一进行考察。作为提示，现在先说到这里就够了。而且这里也只是先把问题提出来，因为在我看来，前言的要义就是对作品的内容先做一个粗略的介绍。

我希望，女性同胞们可以原谅我把她们当作是有理性的生物，而没有恭维她们“迷人的优雅”，也不认为她们会一直像孩子一样无法独立。我想真诚地说明什么是人类真正的尊严和幸福——我希望说服女性去争取身心两方面的力量，想要使她们明白：言语缠绵、多愁善感、趣味高雅几乎是软弱的同义词，而一个仅仅是被人怜悯的对象，她所享有的因怜悯而生的所谓爱慕，很快就会变成轻蔑。

因此，我不愿使用高人一等的男性为了培养女性的奴性依赖而使用的那些美妙说辞。并且我鄙视那些被假想成是女性特质的性格特征，比如“软弱而优雅的心灵”“极度的敏感”“甜美温顺的举止”。我希望告诉大家品德比优雅更重要，无论对于男性还是女性，最值得赞美的追求都是获得成为一个“人”所需要的品质。对其他次要问题的考虑也都应遵循这个简单的衡量标准。

以上就是我写作计划的梗概。我一想到这个问题就会产生一种强烈的情感，如果我在表述理念的时候总是带有这种情感的话，一些读者也许会觉得我是在讲述我的个人经历和感想。我对自己将要论述的重要问题跃跃欲试，不打算花费时间去斟酌词汇或者修饰文风——我的目的是写一本真正有用的书，真诚将会补偿文句质朴的不足。我更希望通过论证的力量来说服读者，而不是让他们迷醉于典雅的辞藻，所以我不会在雕琢文字上浪费时间，或者编造冗长而矫情的浮夸之词，这些脑子里编造出的东西永远无法触动心灵。我要阐述事实，而不是堆砌文字！同时，我迫切地希望女性可以成为更加值得尊敬的社会成员，因此我会尽力避免使用那些渐渐从散文扩散到小说，再从小说进入到日常书信及谈话中的华丽辞藻。

这些信口说出来的漂亮的恭维话，这些对于真正的灵性之美的扭曲夸张，损害了人们的鉴别力，并且制造出一种背离纯朴真理的病态美。人们被虚伪的情感和夸张的情绪所包围，他们内心的自然情感受到了压制，家庭之乐也显得枯燥无趣。而家庭之乐本是可以令那些培育理性和不朽的灵魂、引导人们追求更崇高事业的职责变得甜美的。

近来，虽然女性的教育已经得到了比以前更多的重视，但是她们仍然被看作是微不足道的人。连那些想要帮助女性进步的作家，也在用讽刺作品嘲笑她们，或是用说教来表达对她们的怜悯。众所周知，她们把青少年时光都用在了学习粗浅的才艺上，却放弃了发展身体与心灵的力量。她们这样做既是为了迎合那些关于美貌的轻浮观点，也是为了满足她们通过婚姻稳固自身地位的愿望，因为婚姻是她们提升自己地位的唯一方法。这种欲望让她们堕落至与禽兽无异的境地。婚后，她们表现得就像孩子：她们梳妆打扮、被爱称为是“造物主的杰作”。这些软弱的人只能成为别人的玩物！她们能够掌理好一个家庭，或者照顾好那些被她们带来人世的可怜婴儿吗？

时下，贪图享乐取代了那些可以扩展灵魂的雄心壮志和更为高尚的激情。由此以及当今女性的行为，可以得出结论：在一个文明的社会里，女性所受的教育只是要让她们变成无足轻重的玩物，只是在培养傻瓜！如果我们可以证明，要求女性有所成就却不去培养她们的理性，她们便无法履行职责，而在短暂的青春美貌消失之后，她们会变成无用的可笑之人。那么我认为有理性的人都会原谅我试图让女性变得更加男性化、更加值得尊敬。

实际上，“男性化”不过是个吓唬人的字眼罢了：担心女性会变得过于勇敢坚毅实在没什么必要。她们的体力明显不如男性，这在某种程度上令她们必须在生活中对男性多有依赖。可是有什么理由还要以偏见来加强女性的劣势？为什么要让道德有性别之分？为什么要意图将质朴的真理与充满肉欲的幻想混为一谈？

事实上，那种所谓的“女性美德”的说法其实是对女性的过分贬低。我认为，正是人为造成的女性的软弱催生了她们霸道的习性，这并非自相矛盾：软弱让她们变得狡诈（而狡诈正是力量的天敌），于是她们扮出一副可耻的孩子气，可这无法帮她们得到别人的尊重，反而让她们沦为他人欲望的对象。其实我们无须故意制造这种偏见，女性也自会安于她们的从属地位，而且会表现得比现在更加值得尊重。同时也让男性成为更加正派与谦逊的人吧，如果女性不能同他们一样变得更有智慧，那才说明她们是真的缺乏理性。

几乎不必说，我现在所讨论的是女性的总体。有许多女性比她们的男性亲属更有见识：在夫妻关系中，除非是两人不断争斗而保持均势，否则情势自然会向强势的一方倾斜。在有些家庭中，是女性支配着自己的丈夫，她们的人格并没有遭到贬低。因为，有智慧的人总会支配他人。

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

作者小传

玛丽·沃斯通克拉夫特生于1759年。她的父亲行踪不定，以至于人们难以确定她的出生地。不过，她认为自己出生于伦敦或者埃平森林，她在埃平森林度过了五岁以前的时光。玛丽幼即敏慧、善解人意、富于决断。但暴君般的父亲和懦弱的母亲，给不了她任何良好的家庭熏陶。除了普通走读学校里教的那些课程，她没受到过专门的文学教育。她在不到十六岁的时候，认识了牧师克莱尔先生和弗朗西丝·布拉德小姐。弗朗西丝长她两岁，很有品位，且在美术方面颇有见识，这似乎对她早期性格的形成产生了很大影响。十九岁时，玛丽离开父母，去为一位道森夫人做伴护。直到两年后她回家照顾病重的母亲，才结束了这份工作。母亲去世后，玛丽永远地离开了父亲的家，搬去与弗朗西丝同住。这令她们更加亲密，彼此深深依恋。1783年，她和弗朗西丝在纽因顿-格林共同开办了一所学校。她在这里认识了普莱斯博士，他们彼此十分敬慕和倚重对方。

据说玛丽是出于慈善与博爱的动机才去做一名教师的。教师的职责艰难而且责任重大，而她在工作中的表现证明了她是一位十分优秀的教师。她的朋友和助手弗朗西丝，婚后搬去了葡萄牙的里斯本，并在那里因旧疾肺病而病逝。玛丽十分牵挂弗朗西丝，于是将学校委托他人代管，前去葡萄牙照顾弗朗西斯度过最后的时光。这次出国开阔了玛丽的眼界，就像杨格博士“为纳西莎偷得一方墓穴”：虽然此前她对宗教也并不偏执，但此行的经历令她对盲目崇信以及偏执的宗教观念的害处有了更多的了解。

回国后，玛丽发现在她离开期间学校的境况因管理不善而一落千丈，加上早已有意献身于文学，于是她下定决心开始职业作家生涯。伦敦出版商约翰逊久已仰慕玛丽的写作才华，两人于1787年开始合作，但不清楚是哪一方先提出的邀约。此后三年，玛丽积极从事文字工作，不过多是进行翻译、缩写、编辑一类的工作，而非创作自己的作品。因为失去挚友的打击，这段时间玛丽是在抑郁的情绪下工作的。《玛丽，一篇小说》（Mary, A Novel）这部作品中的大量细节和意绪都取材于她与弗朗西丝的亲密情谊，小说出版后，玛丽的抑郁程度更深了。

玛丽的父亲经济状况窘迫，所以她厉行节约，用自己的积蓄周济弟妹，以免他们无以为生。在很长一段时间里，父亲也仰赖她的资助，她甚至还设法照料着一个孤儿。

从事翻译和编辑工作的经历，使玛丽能够熟练地组织和表达思想，这些对于她日后的发展无疑是颇有益处的。玛丽很快遇到了展现才华的机会：赫赫有名的伯克发表了他著名的作品《对法国大革命的反思》。玛丽热爱自由，对这本在她看来是颠倒黑白的书大为愤慨，于是写下了对这部著作的最初的驳斥。玛丽成功了，她的作品虽然过于锋芒毕露，攻击对手毫不留情，但却激情澎湃、极富感染力——伯克那些热爱自由、思想开明的朋友虽然爱戴他，却也对其对自由的侮辱感到不满和厌恶。

据说玛丽原本对自己的能力不太自信，但是这部作品受到了广泛的欢迎，这让她有机会通过他人的评价来认清自己的能力。不久，玛丽吸收了读者对前作的评价，开始进行新的创作，她只用了六个星期就完成了这部作品。这一新作的功过，就留待每一位读者自行判断吧。总而言之，她独自迈出了大胆的一步，去为人类中的半数进行辩护。无论是在化外之地还是文明社会，这半数的人都被社会习俗剥夺了她们本应拥有的尊严——她们作为有理性的生命所应得的平等地位。新作揭穿了那些意在禁锢女性的花招，它们诱使女性容忍甚至爱上她们所禁受的奴役。这让我们的女作家异常愤怒：她觉得忍受粗鲁无情的压迫都比忍受这些浮华虚假的殷勤好——表面声称女性是骄傲、是造物的杰作，实则将她们贬低为玩物、附属品、毫无价值的存在。这部作品遭受众多非难，而且不出所料，玛丽发现最大的敌意恰恰是来自那些美丽柔媚的人们——她的女性同胞中那些幼稚的、被宠坏的女人。

1792年,玛丽搬到巴黎，认识了来自美国的吉尔伯特·伊姆利。他们渐渐相互吸引并走到一起，但是没有按照法律规定登记结婚。因为缔结婚约会令伊姆利与她分担她自己家庭的经济窘境，而玛丽不愿如此。不过她曾郑重地考虑过订婚，两人还曾计划移民到美国，在那里他们应当可以顺利完婚。当时正是罗伯斯庇尔恐怖专政时期，伊姆利离开巴黎去了阿弗尔，玛丽亦随后前往。他们在那里居住了一段时间，直到伊姆利借口忙生意，又离开阿弗尔去了伦敦。他答应玛丽很快会在巴黎与她重聚，然而他并没有去巴黎。1795年，他让玛丽到伦敦去。此时玛丽已有了一个女儿，并为她取名弗朗西丝，以纪念早年的那段友谊。

玛丽在去英国之前已经对她与伊姆利的感情有了不祥的预感：他对她的爱情即使尚未完全消散，也已然淡去。到英国后，玛丽发现预感已不幸地成为了现实。伊姆利的关心是如此的形式化与勉强，让她不可能觉察不到。即使他将自己的态度和心不在焉归因于工作繁忙，玛丽也看得出来他对她的爱情已经成为过去。用玛丽自己的话来说：“爱情，甜蜜的幻想！严苛的理性迫使我放弃，理性让我看到感情已然无望，我只好学着满足于理性本身带来的愉悦。”玛丽并未过多地表露她此时的悲痛，但从她曾经打算自杀的事实中我们不难对此窥见一斑。第一次伊姆利阻止了她，但她再次打算自杀，在泰晤士河投水。玛丽投水后失去了意识，然而还是被打捞上来并救活了。她用了两年时间，尝试各种办法想挽回与伊姆利的感情，伊姆利也一直百般地辩白与忏悔。最终，玛丽决心放弃挽回伊姆利的希望，并努力接受他不再和她的未来有任何联系的现实。玛丽成功地做到了这一点，此后她曾与他有过一次私人会晤，那时她已不再为此感到任何痛苦。

1796年，玛丽与相识数年的威廉·戈德温感情升温。戈德温写作了《政治正义》以及其他几本在当时曾引发非议的著名作品。虽然他们在最初相识时并未一见钟情，但这次重逢后却开始惺惺相惜，不知不觉地渐渐亲密起来。用玛丽的传记作者的话来说，他们对彼此的挚爱，“是爱情最为纯净的形态，它在彼此的心灵中默契地生长着，最细致入微的观察者也察觉不到步调上的不同。一个性别没有像传统风俗所鼓励的那样采取主动，另一个性别也不曾逾越矜持高雅的严格尺度。在这段关系中，没有主动与被动、猎人与猎物之分。并没有谁刻意地去改变，但两人间的距离自然而然地就消失了”。

婚后仅仅数月，玛丽产下一个女儿，这个孩子就是日后在文学界享有盛名的玛丽·雪莱——珀西·比希·雪莱的孀妇。玛丽却在产后不久就过世了。

我们无法不为玛丽的早逝感到痛惜——她那卓越的才华才刚刚有了用武之地，她那热烈的情感历经曲折痛苦，才刚刚找到休憩之地，而她竟在此时逝去，思及此处怎不令人扼腕叹息！我们情不自禁地揣想，若她不是在乌云密布、压力重重之时离去，若她能够见证之后可能到来的胜利将会有多么的光明和宁谧，那该多好！然而，正是因为她的早逝，我们更要探查这一悲剧发生的缘由。我们会明白：需要改变的，不是个人，而是社会；不是法令，而是公众的观念。

《为女权辩护》的作者，生于1759年4月，卒于1797年9月。

这篇小传中所述诸事，取自此书作者那悲痛的丈夫所撰写的回忆录，因此应当是确切可信的。他说了她许多好话（也未对她性格中的瑕疵避而不谈），并在最后声明说：她是个“可爱的人，一举一动都有着最迷人的女性气质”。

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

致前奥顿主教塔列朗·佩里戈的一封信

先生：

我非常愉快地阅读了您最近发表的那本关于国民教育的小册子。这是我第一次写献词，谨将拙作敬献于您，希望能获得您的关注。因为我认为您能够理解我，您不像那些自以为是的无礼之徒，他们只会用嘲笑来掩饰自己对问题的无知。而先生您，我对您的理解的重视还不止如此呢：我深信您不至于因为您的看法与我不同，就将拙作扔在一边，并草草地做出结论说我错了。请原谅我的直白，但我不得不说，您处理这个问题的方式，与之前的人们一样，都太过于草率了——在他们那个时候，别说是女性的权利，就连男性的权利也被当作是异想天开而饱受践踏。因此，我出于坚定的人道主义立场，呼吁您考虑我所提出的、关于女性权利和国民教育的问题。先生，因为我的论证，是出于无私：我做此辩护是为了所有女性，而非我个人。我一向认为自立是人生中所能拥有的最大福祉，是一切美德的基础。即使我生活在一片贫瘠的不毛之地，哪怕我的其他欲望都不能满足，我也要坚决捍卫我的独立。

对全人类的爱，驱使我奋笔疾书，去赞颂我心目中的美德之源。也是出于同样的动机，我真切地希望能够看到女性获得应有的地位，从而让她们能够促进而非阻碍那些作为道德要义的崇高原则的发展传播。事实上，我对女性权利和义务的见解，也许就是自然而然地从这些基本的原则中产生出来的。所以我认为，您和其他那些能够草拟出这可敬的宪法的开明头脑，是不会与我意见相左的。

在法国，知识的普及程度无疑胜过欧洲其他任何地方。我认为这在很大程度上应当归功于那种由来已久的两性之间的社交传统。我要坦率地说出我的感受，真实的情况是：在法国，酒色之徒深得声色犬马之精髓，人们都在冲动之下依欲望行事，再加上政府与民间组织所奉行的那种表里不一的行为规则，导致法国人的性格里有一种可怕的精明，他们很恰当地称之为“手腕”。这种手腕自然会造就虚文缛节盛行的风气，令真诚的言行不复存在，优雅的礼仪有名无实。而美德最适宜的表现形式——端庄的仪态，在法国甚至比在英国更加受到蔑视，以至于法国女性把动物都能凭本能表现出来的那一点儿端庄都当作是假正经。

礼仪和道德的关系如此密切，以至于它们常被人混淆。虽然礼仪只是美德自然流露的结果，但人们由于种种原因而在年纪轻轻的时候就变得虚伪堕落，道德在他们身上成了空话。克己持重、注重家庭生活的整洁雅致，是端庄的殿堂里的优美支柱；法国女性对此却几乎是鄙视的。但是，假如她们的胸中燃烧着对法国的纯洁热爱，那她们就不仅不会鄙视这些美德，反而会致力于提升同胞的道德：她们会教育男性，不仅要尊重女性的端庄，同时自己也要成为端庄的人，并将之作为得到女性尊敬的唯一方式。

我主张女性权利的主要论据，建立在一个简单原则之上：假如女性不能接受教育，准备好成为男性的平等伴侣，那么人类的知识进步就会停滞。因为真理必须适用于所有人，否则它就失去了在普遍实践中的意义。而且，如果女性不明白为什么应该具备美德，如果她们不是作为独立的人，没有使自己的理性强大起来，以便她们可以理解自己的职责，并看到责任是如何关系到她们的根本利益的话，我们又怎么能期望她们会与男性一起去追求美德呢？若想教育孩子们理解爱国主义的真义，他们的母亲必须是一个爱国者，而对人类的爱（这是一系列美德的源泉），只能来自对人类道德和公民利益的深思熟虑，但是现在，女性的教育和处境都使得她们与这种洞见无缘。

在拙作中我提出了很多我认为足以令人信服的论据，用以证明目前流行的、关于女性角色的观念是有悖于道德的。我一直主张，要使人的身心更健全，就必须要使忠贞的观念被社会更为广泛地接受。而除非男性不再像现在这样推崇虚有其表的女性，除非女性具备了美德与智识，从而表现出了精神上的美好以及纯朴动人的感情，否则忠贞在男性群体中将永远无法得到重视。

先生，请您平心静气地考虑一下这些意见，因为当您评论说“我看到人类的一半被另一半排除在一切政治活动之外，理论上来说，这是一个令人费解的政治现象”的时候，您几乎已经触及了这个真理。如果是这样的话，那么你们的宪法是以什么为依据的呢？假如男性作为“人”的抽象权利能够被讨论和阐释，那么基于同样的理由，我们也不必害怕同样地去检视女性的抽象权利——虽然当下这个国家流行的观点与此不同，他们和您都用成规惯例来证明女性受到压迫是合理的。

我向作为立法者的您请求，请您考虑这个问题：虽然您笃信自己是按照最能增进妇女幸福的方式来行事的，但是，当男性可以为他们的自由而斗争、在关于其自身幸福的问题上能够自行作出判断的时候，压制女性是不是会令您自相矛盾以及有失公平呢？假如女性和男性一样拥有天赋的理性，是谁规定了男性才是唯一有权做决断的人呢？

所有的专制者们，从昏庸的国王到昏庸的一家之主，都用这种论调为自己的专制辩护：他们都热衷于扼杀理性，却又总是声称那是为了别人好。当您拒绝承认女性拥有公民权利和政治权利，迫使全体女性困守在家庭之中、在黑暗中摸索的时候，您不是也在扮演着同样的角色吗？先生，您肯定不会认为，一种不以理性为基础的义务是有约束力的吧？如果困守于家庭真的是女性的宿命，那也应该用理性来证明它。而理性已经严正地证明了：女性获得的理性越多，就越能够理解她们的义务、善尽她们的责任。这是因为，任何权威都不能使她们怀着美德去尽义务，除非她们能够理解这种义务、除非她们的道德和男性的道德维系于同样的、不朽的原则。尽管她们也可以成为得力的奴隶，但是奴隶制度只会产生一个结果：让主人和可悲的依附者一同趋于堕落。

但是，如果女性在毫无发言权的情况下，被剥夺了天赋之人权，那么为了避免新宪法被认为是不公平的以及自相矛盾的，请您首先证明女性是缺乏理性的，否则你们的新宪法——第一部基于理性的宪法——中的这个污点，将一直地证明：男性一定要以某种形式如暴君一般地行事。而专制暴政，无论出现在社会的哪个角落，都只会是对道德的破坏。

我反复主张，并且用我认为是无可辩驳的事实论据来证明的一点就是：不应当将女性强迫性地限制在家务上。因为无论她们是如何地无知，都会插手到比家务更为重要的事务当中去，而一旦基于理性的合理计划超出了她们的理解范围，她们就会无视个人的职责，用狡猾的小把戏去破坏它。

而且，在女性只能学习各种个人才艺的时候，男性却能寻求各式各样的享受，于是不忠的丈夫造就了不忠的妻子。这些无知的女性，既没有接受过要尊重公众利益的教育，又不能拥有任何公民权利，若她们试图用报复的手段为自己寻求公正，实在也是情有可原。

这个社会的灾厄之盒就这样被打开了。而我们又拿什么来保护个人的美德呢？它正是公众自由和普世幸福的唯一保障。

那就让压迫不能再在社会上立足，使两性能够在普遍的自然法则下各安其位。而且，如果你们以更加公正的法律去规范你们的公民，那么他们的婚姻也将会变得更加神圣。你们的年轻男性将能够出于爱情的动机来选择妻子，你们的年轻女性也会因为真正的爱情而不再虚荣。

这样的话，一个家庭中的父亲不会再因嫖妓而伤身败德，也不会一味地顺从情欲的召唤，却忘记人之所以会有情欲的根本原因，而母亲也不会忽视她的儿女，只顾卖弄风情，因为理性和端庄会让她得到丈夫的情谊。

除非男性开始重视父亲的义务，否则期望“识时务”的女性将对镜梳妆的时间用到教养子女上是不切实际的。因为女性使出这点狡猾的手段只是一种自然的本能，好让她们能间接地得回一点点她们那份被不公正地剥夺了的权利——如果女性不被允许享有合法的权利，她们就只能寻求非法的特权，从而使男性和她们自己都陷入邪恶的境地。

我的心愿是：先生您能在法国进行一些对这类问题的调查研究。如果这些研究能够证实我的理念，如果我们充分地证明了尊重女性权利是理性的要求、我们应当为人类的这一半高声疾呼公平正义的话，那么当你们的宪法进行修订的时候，女性的权利就该得到尊重。

此致，

敬礼！

玛丽·沃斯通克拉夫特

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

第一章 论人类的权利和义务

当今的社会现实，让我们有必要重温追求最为质朴的真理时所需遵循的基本原则，以对抗那些随处可见的强大偏见。作为准备，我先问几个简单的问题。这些问题的答案本来有如作为人类思考之基石的公理一般不言自明，不过，一旦涉及具体的行为动机，人们言行便会公然地与此相背离。

人类何以超拔于禽兽？答案就像一个大于半个一样显而易见：因为人有理性。

一个人因何而卓然于世人？我们不假思索地回答，因为此人具备美德。

人类为何会具有激情？经验告诉我们，在与欲望抗争的过程中人类能够收获知识，这是禽兽所不能的。

所以说，理性、美德与知识的多少，决定了人们本性的完善程度与谋求幸福的能力，也区分开了每个人、指引着规范社会的法律。知识与美德是在一个人践行理性的过程中自然而然地产生的。将人类作为一个总体来看，这一点也同样无可争议。

在对人类的权利和义务进行过这一番简要的说明之后，似乎我们没有必要再试着去阐明这些看来无可争议的真理。然而仍有一些根深蒂固的偏见令理性蒙尘，种种虚伪的品质仍在冒顶美德之名，各色偶然事件常常使得人们的理性变得混乱甚而被引入歧途，因此我们有必要廓清事实，辨清质朴的真理与偶然的例外。

人们常常被偏见所蒙蔽，并且自己也无从追溯是从何时开始。他们不但没有用自己的理性去根除这些偏见，反而还要为它们辩护。因为要坚持自己的原则，需要坚强的意志，所以当需要克服偏见的时候，许多人因为意志软弱，而临阵退缩或半途而废。我们就这样接受了偏见，它们通常看似有理，其实只是基于片面和狭隘的观点而得来。

让我们回到基本原则上来。偏见先天即有缺陷，却善于粉饰狡辩。可那些思想浅薄的人们总是认为不需花太多精力去识别偏见，还声称这些本质腐朽的观点能够有助于思考。偏见就这样作为可以便利思考的手段被与基本原则不断地相提并论，似是而非地冒顶了基本原则之名，直到真理迷失于模糊的言辞、美德流于形式、知识让位于浮华的虚无。

几乎所有有理性的人都坚信，社会在理论上是按照最明智的方式组织起来的，并且根植于人类的本性之上，以至于试图找到证据来证明它的行为看起来都是在冒犯大家。但我们还是必须证明它，否则理性就无法战胜偏见的成规。而我们每天都在看到这些偏见在不断地侵蚀常识，它想证明剥夺男性（或女性）与生俱来的权利是合理的。

欧洲大众的文明并不完善，不仅如此，我们的文明还有这样一个问题：人们以天真本性和自由为代价换回来的东西，是否包含着一些美德，能够抵偿他们为了粉饰自己的无知而做出的愚行所带来的痛苦，能够值得他们忍受形式精巧而隐蔽的奴役？人们心目中的最高成就，就是过上富人的光鲜生活、享受被拍马屁者奉承的乐趣以及进行其他种种卑劣的自利之举。自由则沦为伪爱国主义者用来自我标榜的便利工具。地位与头衔的重要性被无限地放大，这令才华卓越之人“不得不低下他们相形见绌的头颅”。除了少数例外，有才能的人因为没有地位与财产而专注于博取名位，这是国家的不幸。一个默默无闻的冒险家渴望与王公贵族分庭抗礼、向往三重冠下的名位，在他争得权位的过程中，会有多少人在承受着前所未有的痛苦啊！

这其实就是身份、财产与权力世袭制的恶果，几乎所有那些有洞察力的人在为世袭制的合理性进行辩护时，说的都是亵渎上帝的恶言。照他们的说法，造物主创造了人类，可之后人类却不再听命于他，他们违背天命去盗取天宫的理性之火，神为了惩罚人类的冒犯，便将罪恶隐藏在这星星之火中，传遍世间。

卢梭就相信这种是神意让人间充满痛苦与无序的观点。可他也受不了再和矫揉造作的傻瓜们打交道，而迷恋上离群索居。作为一个乐观主义者，他还用自己少见的雄辩之才力证人生来就是孤独的动物，好让他的幽居生活显得是顺从天命而非出于无奈。他被自己对上帝至善的信仰误导了——上帝只会赐予世间美好，人怎可因自己的感受而怀疑上帝！所以他认为人间确实存在罪恶，但那是人类咎由自取。他没有注意到他为了赞颂神而过分地贬低了人，其实这两者对于神性的至善完美都不可或缺。

卢梭的结论建筑在一个错误的假设上，这让他倡导保持自然状态的论点虽然看起来很有吸引力，但实际上并不合理。我认为它不合理的原因在于：如果说无论文明如何改进都不会比自然状态更好，那么这其实就是在指责上帝的智慧。一方面相信上帝让世间所有事物按照正确的方式存在，另一方面相信罪恶就是由上帝所创造并且了解的人类造成的。这是自相矛盾的说法，既不合乎逻辑，也是对上帝的不敬。

万能的上帝造人并将我们置于世间，他看着是好的，才允许它发生：他容许人类在各种原始的欲望中一步步地走向理性，因为他能看到今日的罪恶会在未来升华出美德。我们是他从无名中创造出来的无助的生灵，是他准许我们如此，否则我们如何能游离于他的旨意之外，在罪恶中学习美德？当卢梭热情地为上帝辩护的时候，他怎么会做出那么自相矛盾的论证呢？如果人类永远停留在野蛮无知的原生状态，即使他的妙笔生花也无法在这样的人当中找到哪怕一点可供美德植根的土壤。人是为了完成生死轮回而来到世间的，我们的天命就是完善造物主的世界，可是我们的本性中有与天命冲突的部分需要克服，虽然那敏感漫步者对此未经深思而无法领会。

更进一步地说，如果人类是有理性的生物，并且能够不断磨炼他们与生俱来的能力，来完成上帝赋予他们的使命，如果仁慈的上帝也认同会思考与自省的人类应当有超拔于禽兽的生活方式，那么这就是上帝赐予人类的、最宝贵的天赋。如果是上帝赋予人类这种可以让他们超越那种纯感官层面的、野蛮蒙昧的安适的能力，我们怎能认为这天赋是一种诅咒？若我们只存在于眼下的这个世界，那么有这种天赋也许是不幸的：为何仁慈的造物主要给我们欲望，又给我们思考的能力？这只能让我们怨恨自己的生活，让我们对于真正的价值产生错误的观念。可他引导我们从只爱自己，走向那种因为领会到他的智慧与美好而兴奋不已的伟大感情。如果这种伟大的感情不是为了帮助我们改进自己的本性，他为何要为了奖赏我们的努力而让我们能够领受一种更为贴近他本身的美好呢？我坚信上帝是万能的，所以我认为世间的任何罪恶都是因为上帝让它发生才会存在的。

卢梭力证原始的一切都是好的，很多其他人认为现在的一切都是好的，而我则认为一切在未来都会好的。

卢梭坚持他对于原生状态的赞美，进而还赞颂野蛮。他将法布里西乌斯不好的一面隐去不提，无视罗马人征服世界的时候对于被征服的民族从来不讲自由与美德的事实。他热衷于搭建自己的学说，为此不惜污蔑说天才们的种种努力皆是邪恶的，却将野蛮人的道德抬高神化。斯巴达人被他尊为半神，其实他们野蛮得几乎很难算得上是人类，他们不讲公正和感恩，冷血地屠杀了曾英勇地挽救过他们这些压迫者性命的奴隶们。

就因为厌倦了上流社会矫揉造作的礼仪和美德，这位日内瓦的公民，就像把麦子和麸皮不加分辨地一起扔掉一样，将文明与罪恶也一同抛弃了。他根本没有弄清楚，那令他热切的灵魂深恶痛绝的罪恶到底是文明的产物，还是野蛮的余孽。他看到罪恶践踏着美德，伪善代替了真实。他看到天才被权贵摆布，为他们险恶的目的服务，却从未想过将这种种为害至巨的行为归因于权力的专横与世袭，这种制度与人因智慧超群而自然取得的超越同侪的优势针锋相对。他没有意识到，王权世袭不但使得高贵的血统不需几代就孕育出愚痴的后代，更给无数人树立了怠惰与恶行的榜样。

王权的特质中最可鄙的一点，是人们为了得到至尊的地位所犯下的种种罪恶。卑鄙的诡计、伤天害理的罪行，以及其他种种让人性蒙羞的恶行，都是取得这无上名位的必由之路。而大众竟然还能容忍，这些强取豪夺之人的后代继续安稳舒服地坐在那染血的御座之上。

当一个社会最主要的管理者只被教授以捏造罪行和一些愚蠢幼稚的例行公事，这个社会除了遍布乌烟瘴气，还能有什么其他可能？人类难道永远都不能变得有智慧吗？他们难道还要继续期望从秕子里收获谷粒、从蒺藜枝头摘取无花果吗？

即使所有有利的条件集齐，也没有任何人能有足够的知识和智慧，可以履行国王所拥有的、不受限制的职权。何况国王的尊贵地位就是他修习智慧与美德最不可逾越的障碍。当一个人被奉承和声色犬马包围，他还能有什么其他的感情和思想？国王的地位必然会让他比他最卑劣的臣民还差劲，把无数人的命运系于这样一个软弱无常之人的身上实在是疯狂之举。但我们不能推翻一个强权再代之以另一个强权，因为无论哪个都会让软弱的人被毒害。对权势的滥用证明了人们彼此越是平等，社会上就越多美德和幸福。这一点和其他任何类似的道理一样，都只需简单的推理即可得到，可是它们却招来了很多人的反对。反对者说：如果古老相传的智慧不再具有绝对的权威，教会和国家就会陷于险境。他们污蔑那些因为看到人类的痛苦而奋起挑战统治者权威的人是渎神者、是人类公敌。这些恶毒的诽谤，竟被加诸于一位最优秀的人身上。虽然他已经离世，可是他宣扬和平的遗音犹在，当我们讨论到这样一个与他的心意如此切近的话题时，我们应该为他默哀。

抨击完神圣的国王陛下之后，我接下来的观点大概不会再引起什么大惊小怪。我坚信任何一个靠着森严的等级来建立权威的职业，都有损德行。

举例来说，常备军就与自由格格不入。军纪的基础在于服从和严苛，要指挥军队建功立业必须要对其有充分的控制权。只有少数的军官能够感受到浪漫的荣誉感所激发的激情——这是一种建立在时下流行观念的基础之上的道德，而大部分下级士兵只能如海浪般听命行事，当他们在上级的命令下热血沸腾地冲锋陷阵的时候，他们几乎不知道也不关心为什么要这样做。

此外，也没有什么能比一帮闲散肤浅的年轻人临时驻扎在乡间更能为害乡里道德的了。他们所做的唯一的事情就是跟女人们搭讪，他们的恶行被掩盖在文雅的举止和光鲜的制服之下，因而更加具有危险性。他们时髦的样子，不过是奴隶的徽记，只能证明他们的灵魂中没有足够强大的个性特质。可是纯朴的乡民却不能识破他们文雅之下的轻浮，反而对他们敬畏不已，竞相效仿他们的恶行。所有军队都是专制者手中的锁链，他们不问青红皂白，只为统治服务，已是社会难以承受的罪恶与愚行之重。一个有地位和财产的人，自会步步高升，除了追求奢侈的生活没事可做；而清寒的正人君子，想要凭借自己的本领求得发展而不能，只得依附于人或自甘堕落。

海军的水手与此类似，所不同的是他们的恶劣言行更加粗野。在不轮值履责的时候，他们更加懒惰。跟他们相比，陆军的轻浮似乎无伤大雅，甚至可以被称之为是活泼闲散的生活。前者接触的多是男性，所以更喜欢讲笑话和恶作剧。后者总有与上流社会女性交往的机会，惯会说些多情的假话。但不论是粗野地大笑还是斯文地假笑，他们的脑袋里都没有什么思想。

让我再把对比扩大到教士这个需要更多脑力的职业上来。虽然等级制度同样牢牢地控制着这个群体，但是他们有更多的机会可以提升自己。神学院的教育养成了他们的盲从，见习时候他们又看到助理牧师如果想要得到晋升，就要对教区牧师和施主极尽谄媚。世上最强烈的对比，也许莫过于卑躬屈膝、仰人鼻息的助理牧师和仪态雍容的主教之间的区别了。不论他们所激起的是别人的尊重还是轻视，都会让他们无法善尽自己的职责。

每个人的个性都不同程度地受到其职业的影响，认识到这一点非常重要。一个人也许只是表面看起来通情达理，但如果你深究他的个性可能会发现并非如此。而那些软弱平凡的人，除了体貌特征，简直没有什么特质，他们所有的想法都被权威思想洗脑过，就好像被倒进了酒桶里再也无法分离出来的葡萄酒一样，他们孱弱的思维不足以让他们与他人不同。

因此社会在进化的过程中要特别注意，不要让人因为职业的影响而变成坏蛋或傻瓜。

在社会形成的早期，当人们刚刚开始摆脱蒙昧的时候，酋长和祭司掌握着支配野蛮人行为的力量之源——希望和恐惧——拥有无上的权力。因此，贵族统治自然成为政府最初的形式。但很快各方的利益均衡就被打破了，野心家们引入了君主体制和教会政治，它们都建立在封建所有制的基础上。这似乎就是王权与教权最初的来源，也是人类文明的第一缕曙光。可是这种压迫的制度并不稳定，不能长久，它引发对外战争以及国家内乱，大众在动乱中得到一些权力，迫使统治者让他们的统治至少在表面上看来能够公正一些。于是，当战争、农业、商业、文学拓展了人们的思维，统治者就不能继续像以前一样明目张胆地攫取权力，不得不将压迫进行得更为隐蔽。这种经过粉饰的压迫，是野心的余孽，又借着奢侈与迷信快速地传播开来。宫廷中那个怠惰的傀儡，先是变成一个穷奢极欲的怪物，沉溺于声色犬马之乐，继而将这种不正常的败德之行当作了施行暴政的手段。

这种散播罪恶的王权统治，把文明的进步变成了祸害，让人头脑不清，让有识之士不得不开始怀疑人类才智的增长到底是产生了更多欢乐还是痛苦？但王权毒药本身的特质也指引我们找到了解毒的方法。如果卢梭将他的研究再提高一个层次，或者他能看到他不屑一顾的迷雾背后的真相，他敏锐的头脑就会立刻开始思索如何在真正的文明中使人类达到尽善尽美，而不会再有回到蒙昧无知时代的可怕想法了。

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

第二章 论关于两性特质的普遍成见

男性为了给自己的专制找到理由和借口，发明了很多巧妙的言辞，以证明两性应该致力于谋求极为不同的品质，或者说得更明白一点儿，他们就想证明女性不应被允许拥有足够的智能，以获得那些真正配得上被称为是“美德”的东西。然而看起来上帝指引给人类的、获得美德与幸福的唯一途径，就是承认女性也同样拥有灵魂。

所以，如果女性并非朝生暮死、微不足道之人，为什么要混淆是非地把她们的愚昧无知称作是天真呢？男性抱怨我们女性行为愚蠢、反复无常，这种抱怨有充分的理由，可是他们却不太批判我们感情上的善变与卑躬屈膝的恶习。可我要说，这些都是愚昧无知的必然结果！思想要是只能根植于偏见之上，它就不可能是稳固的。而当下，偏见的思潮却畅行无阻，为害无穷。小女孩们以母亲为榜样，她们被教导说：要对人的弱点有些了解，好能耍些小手腕，性情要温顺、要表现得很听话、要留意维持着一种孩子般幼稚的仪态，这样她们就能得到男人的保护；她们还必须要漂亮，一辈子里至少有二十年时间，除了这个她们无须考虑其他事情。

弥尔顿就是这样描述我们脆弱的、最初的母亲的。他说女性被创造出来就是为了展现温柔与甜美的迷人风采。我不明白这是什么意思，除非他采信了纯正的伊斯兰教义的说法，想要否认女性拥有灵魂，想拐弯抹角地说：上帝创造女性只是为了让她们具备甜美可爱的吸引力，并且盲从于男性的管教，好让他们的感官在思考的间隙得以被取悦。

他们是在说服我们把自己当成温顺的家畜，这可真是奇耻大辱！比如，他们经常十分热心地劝说我们，要表现出迷人的柔顺、要用服从换来支配的权力。这是多么幼稚的想法：一个会这样做的人是多么的不足取，这种人怎会有可能永生不朽？谁会服从这种险恶的统治？培根勋爵说：“当然了，人类在肉体上与兽类相近，如果他不能在精神上贴近上帝，他就是卑贱可耻的生物！”事实上，男性的行为在我看来非常不合逻辑——他们想要保护女性的良好品性，方法却是让她们永远处于孩子般幼稚的状态。卢梭的观点比较不会自相矛盾，他希望让两性的理性都不再发展——因为如果男性吃下了智慧之果，女性自然也会跟着试试，可是她们的理解力没有受到完美的教育，这让她们只能接受罪恶的知识。

我承认，孩子应该天真单纯，但是当这样的形容词被用到成年男女身上时，它就成了软弱的委婉说法。如果上帝要女性取得人类的美德，她们就该被允许靠近真正的光明之源，而不是在星斗的微光下独力摸索。通过运用理性，她们会变得坚定稳固，这正是孕育了我们未来希望的、最坚实的基础。我想，弥尔顿的观点与我非常不同，他只醉心于美貌那无可争辩的特权。以下我摘录他的两段诗歌作为对比，它们很不一致，不过大人物们倒是常被感性主导，说出自相矛盾的话：

美艳无缺的夏娃对他表示：

“我的创作者和安排者啊，你所

吩咐的，我都依从，从不争辩，

这是神定的。神是你的法律，

你是我的法律。此外不闻不问，

这才是最幸福的知识，女人的美誉。”

这跟我对孩子们讲的话一模一样。只不过我还会跟他们说：“现在你们的理性还在成长，在它基本成熟之前，你要听从我的建议。之后，你就应该自行思考，从此你将只依赖上帝。”

然而，在接下来的这几行诗句里，当弥尔顿描写亚当向造物主争辩的时候，他的意见似乎又与我的一致：

“您不是造我在这儿做您的代言人，

把这些愚劣者遥遥放在我下面吗？

这才是最幸福的知识，女人的美誉。”

什么和谐，或真正的欢乐呢？

这要求互相平衡，互相授受。

但在不平衡的情况下，

这个张，那个弛，互不配合，

结果，二者不久便厌倦了。

我所说的和所寻求的友谊，

是能互相分享一切出于理性的愉快。”

所以，在对待女性的态度上，让我们忘掉那些世俗的观点，去探索如何做才能帮助她们更好地完成上帝所赋予她们的使命吧——希望我这样说不会惊吓到读者。

“私人教育”这个词还没有一个确切的定义，我用这个词表示这样一种对孩子的关照：它帮助孩子逐步地提升各种感知能力、培养性情、在青春萌动时控制欲望、在身体成熟之前学会运用理智，以便于他们在成年后能够顺理成章地完成学习思考的重要任务，而不是从头开始。

为了避免误解，我得补充一下，我不认为私人教育能够像一些乐观的作家所相信的那样创造教育的奇迹。男性与女性，都在极大的程度上受到他们所处社会的观念和习俗的影响。在每个时代，都有一种挟裹一切的流行思潮，赋予这个时代的人一种共通的性格特征。所以我们很容易得到一个结论：除非社会有所改变，否则我们不能对教育寄望过高。然而这对于我要证明的观点来说已经足够了，我认为，无论环境对人的才智有什么影响，每个人都可以通过运用自己的理性变得更有德行。若非如此，如果人性本恶、低劣异常，我们又怎能免于成为无神论者？又或者我们如何能免于崇信魔鬼？

因此，我心目中最完善的教育，是通过锻炼理性来强健体魄和塑造心灵，或者换句话说，能够将美德养成为一个人发自内心的习惯。事实上，要是一个人的美德并非是其理性思考的结果，那么称他为有德之人实在是滑稽。这是卢梭对于男性的判断准则，我将之延伸用于女性，并且我坚定地相信：她们的问题并不在于试图具备男性的美德，而在于被矫揉造作之风围绕。可是，在这种风气之下，女性所受到的那种帝王般的崇拜确实令人心醉神迷。除非时代的风气有所改变，开始建立在更加合乎理性的原则之上，否则即使是她们需要付出辱没人格的代价，也不太可能说服她们，这不合理的特权实则是个祸害。而她们如果想要享受纯真的感情所带来的宁静的满足，她们就得回归本性，与男性保持平等。为此我们必须要等待，也许要等到王公贵族在理性的引导下开始认识到人类真正的高贵所在，不再推崇那种孩子气的幼稚，等到他们放弃炫耀世袭的尊荣。如果到那时，女性还不愿意放弃她们因美貌而享有的特权，那我们才真的可以说她们的理性不如男性。

也许有人会指责我傲慢自大，但我仍然要表明我的观点，我坚信：从卢梭到格雷戈里博士，所有那些曾经写作了女性教育与女性仪态指导书的作家们，他们的作品加重了女性的虚伪和软弱，没有这些教导她们不致如此，她们本来可以成为更加有用的社会成员。我原本可以换个低调一点的说法来表达我的观点，但我怕那样会让它听起来像是无病呻吟，而不是对我的思想感情的忠实描述，不是出于我的经验与思考的结果。当我论述这部分观点的时候，我会提到一些上述几位作家的作品中我最不赞同的段落。在开始之前，我们有必要明确，我反对所有那些在我看来意图贬低女性的书籍，它们意图教导女性放弃美德，取悦他人。

如果按照卢梭的观点，男性在身体长成后，心智也自然会达到某种程度上的完善，那么为了让他与他的妻子能够灵魂相属，也许妻子就该完全依赖丈夫的理性，就像美丽的常春藤攀附着橡树，依赖着它的支撑，它们一起达成了一种力与美的协调统一。但是啊，那些做丈夫的，还有他们的妻子，常常只是大号的孩童。不仅如此，由于青年时代的放荡无度，男性连在外表上都很难称得上是有男子气概。让盲人为盲人引路，我们不需要上帝的智慧也能知道会有什么结果。

在当前这个腐朽的社会里，有很多原因促使人们通过压制女性的理性和放纵她们的感性来使女性陷入被奴役的地位。其中为害至深的一种办法，大概就是让她们缺乏条理性。

做事有条有理是一个非常重要的准则。男性从幼年起，就被授以和示范这个法则，而女性一般来说接受的是一种无序的教育，很少能在秩序方面接受到与男性同样多的指导。这种漫不经心、盲人摸象般的做事方法——除了这个词，还有什么说法能更好地描绘这种从没经过理性检验、只凭本能所知的常识随意行事的情形？——让女性缺乏自事实中进行总结提炼的能力。所以她们日复一日地重复着昨天的生活，只因为她们一直就是那么过的。

对女性在幼年时疏于理性教育所导致的恶果，远超过人们一般的设想。理性较好的女性所知的那一点东鳞西爪的知识，相比男性所获得的知识要杂乱无序得多，并且大多是单纯从个人生活经验中总结出来的，她们很少将个人体验与经过思考提炼的经验进行对比。由于她们的依附地位，以及她们更多的是家庭成员而非社会成员，女性所学大多支离破碎。而且一般而言学习对她们来说只是次要的事情，她们很少会对什么学科燃起百折不挠的热情，而这恰恰是砥砺才华、明辨是非的必由之路。在当今社会，绅士们需要点学识来配合他的身份，男孩们也必须要接受几年教育。但是对于女性，培育理性总是要让位于妆点肉身。甚至于当她们的身体已经在各种规矩以及柔顺为要的错误观点的要求之下变得柔弱无力的时候，还要再特意禁止她们展现优雅自然的体态之美。这可真是多此一举，她们发育不良的身体怎么可能具有这样的美感。而且，她们年轻的时候并不需要与人比拼才华，不需要认真系统地学习。即使天赋出众，也会过早地被用在关注琐事与仪表上。她们只关心事情的结果和改变，却从不关心其原因，她们用一套繁复的行为规范来代替基本的原则。

为了证明是教育让女性变得软弱，我们可以看看军人的例子。他们和女性一样，也是在头脑里积累下足够的知识和行事原则之前，就进入社会了。他们和女性的表现也类似：士兵们在谈话中得到些一知半解的、肤浅的知识，这些知识和他们的社会经验不断混杂；他们其实只是对礼仪和习俗的了解，却经常被与对人类内心的了解相混淆。但是他们这种通过偶然的观察得来的不成熟的认识，从未经过辨别，也从未将经验与理论进行比照，怎能称得上是对人类心灵有所了解？军人和女性，都鲜有美德却谨守礼俗。他们性别不同，但所受的教育一样，我能看到他们之间唯一的区别，就是军人比女性多些自由、多些见识。

现在我要对政治问题做一点评论，这也许稍微偏离了主题一点，但是这个话题是我思考中自然出现的一个环节，我不想就这样跳过它。

常备军不可能是意志坚定和身体强健的人。他们也许能像机器一样听话，却很少有激情充沛或才华横溢之人。我不揣冒昧地断言，在军人和女性中，都很难找到任何程度的理性。而且我认为，造成这两类人缺乏理性的原因是相同的。我们还能进一步发现，军官们也特别注意他们的仪表，热衷于跳舞、社交、冒险和嘲弄人。他们像女人一样，把对女性献殷勤当成正经事。他们被教导如何取悦他人，而且就为了取悦于人而活着。然而军人没有失去他们性别上的优势，他们的地位仍然要高于女性。虽然除了之前说过的，他们比女性多些自由与见识之外，很难看出来他们还在哪些方面优于女性。

他们最大的不幸在于，都是在学到美德之前就学会了礼仪，在对人性之美有总体认识之前就学会了世故。结果自然就是，他们满足于对人性的一知半解，被偏见俘获，所思所想皆与利益有关，盲目地听命于当权者。如果他们有什么识别力，也是直觉的灵光一闪，从经验而来，只能解决礼俗世故层面的问题。他们没有能力追寻表象之下的本质，或者对自己的想法进行分析。

这些评论是否同样适用于女性呢？不但适用，而且还可以在此基础上把论述再向前推进一步。因为这两类人都被文明社会以一种非自然的方式隔离起来，无法成为有用之人。财富以及世袭的头衔，让女性的个人魅力不敌财产的数字。让那些无所事事的男性成为了蛮勇与专制的混合体，他们一面为情妇当牛做马，一面对自己的姐妹妻女作威作福，这其实同样是为了让她们安于现状。如果女性眼界开阔、意志坚定，她们将不再盲从，可盲从却正是所有的当权者都一直在找寻的东西，专制统治者与肉欲主义者都致力于让女性蒙昧不开，只不过专制统治者需要的是奴隶，而肉欲主义者想要的是玩物。事实上，肉欲主义者是最危险的专制者，女性被她们的情人欺骗了，就好像王子被弄臣所惑，却还以为自己才是统治的一方。

现在我要好好地谈一谈卢梭，他所塑造的人物苏菲毫无疑问非常迷人，不过在我看来却十分不自然。不过我要抨击的，是她接受的教育所遵循的原则、她性格的基础，而不是基于其上的、她的性格本身。而且，我虽然非常欣赏卢梭这位天才的作家，经常引用他的观点，但是当我读到他那些耽于声色幻想的文字的时候，我感到的是愤怒而非钦佩，他那有伤德行的论述让我皱眉，无法像读着那些雄辩动人的篇章时一样赞赏地微笑。这真是那个热爱美德、想要远离一切安逸奢华的享受、几乎要把我们带回到斯巴达式的戒律面前的人吗？这真是那个为人们战胜了欲望、为良好的品行取得了胜利、为闪光的灵魂引领人类超脱凡俗而喝彩的人吗？当他描述他那小小心上人的美丽双足与迷人气质的时候，他堕落得多么厉害呀！但是现在我不想继续抨击他这些偶然流露出来的自负，我只想说：那些关爱社会的人所乐于看到的，是人们彼此谦恭相爱，这种爱的体面不在于什么多愁善感的情绪，男女之间也不是因为那些试探追逐的智力游戏才达成稳固的联盟。

日常的家务劳动的确包含一些令人愉悦的部分，天真的爱抚确实减轻了操持那些无须训练有素的大脑深思熟虑的琐事的辛劳，不过这些安适妥帖更多地激起的是温情而非尊重。看着孩子玩耍或者逗弄宠物时怀有的感情，能比得上看到高贵的人为了美德而受苦时所油然而生的赞赏吗？是这赞赏带领我们走到了感性让位于理性的境界里。

所以，我们要么把女性视为有道德的人，要么认为她们软弱到只能依赖男性的才能。

让我们来剖析一下这个问题。卢梭宣称：女性应该时时刻刻依附于男性，应该在恐惧的支配下施展她们天生的狡猾，好成为风情万种的奴隶、男人可爱的伴侣，每当男性需要放松的时候，都能够轻而易举地激发他们的欲望。他自命他的观点深得自然的真谛，更将其继续向前推进一步，暗示说：作为人类所有美德之基石的真理与坚定意志，同样应当只在男性的范围内培养。这是因为，对于女性来说，顺从才是应当被一丝不苟铭刻于心的、最要紧的美德。

真是无稽之谈！何时才出现一位足够理智的、伟大的人，来廓清这如此傲慢又耽于声色的观点！即使女性生来就比男性低劣，她们也该与男性遵从同样的美德，区别只在于程度；否则美德就不过是个相对的概念。女性的行为应当基于与男性相同的原则、具有与男性一致的目标。

作为男性的女儿、妻子和母亲，女性的品质可以通过她们对于行使简单家务职责的态度来评估，但是她们努力的终极目标应该是全面发挥她们的才能，通过自觉履行美德来获得尊严。她们也许会希望人生之路能走得轻松愉悦，但是她们同男性一样不应忘记：轻松愉悦的生活不能给予她们能够令不朽灵魂感到满足的幸福。我并不想暗示，有任何一个性别的人应当迷失在抽象的思考和对未来的展望中，以至于忘记了眼前的爱与责任。相反，我热切地推崇爱与责任，即使是我做了上述的评述，我仍然认为它们是让生活富有成果的必要方式，认真对待它们是我们生活中大多数幸福的来源。

人们都认为女性应该为男性而活，这可能来源于摩西的史诗故事。然而，认真考虑这件事情的人里面极少有人真的相信，夏娃是亚当的一根肋骨，所以我们就不要把它当真了。或者，这最多只能说明：男性从远古时代就发现以强力征服伴侣于己有利，于是发明出这个说法想让女性相信她们以及世间的飞禽走兽，被创造出来都是为了取悦男性，所以她们身受压迫是合理的。

别因为这些话就认为我要颠覆万物的秩序。我已经承认，从体质来看，上帝似乎是要男性具备更多的美德。这是对男性整体而言，可我看不出来有什么理由可以从中推断出应当令男性的美德在性质上与女性的不同。实际上，如果美德只有一个永恒的准则，我们怎么能给不同的人不同的标准？因此，我必然会得到一个结论：男性与女性都要遵从同样的基本原则，就像上帝只有一个。

这样看来，我们不该把狡猾与智慧对立起来，不该把琐碎的操劳与伟大的实践对立起来，不该把乏味的顺从称为温柔，不该把这种顺从与伟大目标才能激起的坚强意志对立起来。

人们会跟我说：要是像我说的那样的话，女性会失去许多她们独有的魅力，他们还会引用著名诗人蒲柏的诗句来反驳我的坚定立场。他为所有男性主张道：

“一旦她对我们所憎恨的一切稍有触犯，

那谁也无法预料我们的怒火会造成什么后果。”

这句妙语到底要把男性和女性置于何种境地啊！这个问题还是留待有识之士去回答吧。此时，我只想研究一个问题：除了生就一副肉体凡胎之外，有什么理由把女性贬为爱情和欲望的奴隶？

我知道，对爱情说出不敬的话，对于人们的感受和美好的感情来说简直是大逆不道。但是我只想说出简单的真理，我要跟从理性而非感情。要想从世界上剔除爱情，就好像要从塞万提斯的书里剔除堂吉诃德一样困难，而且也同样地不合理，但是对这种骚动的激情加以限制、证明它不该僭越理性的权力，则是比较合理的。

青年时代是两性陷入爱情的季节。但是在享受着无忧无虑的快乐的时候，他们也应当为未来做好准备，以便于在生命中更重要的时期能够让理性代替感情。但是卢梭，以及许多步他后尘的男性作家，却热切地主张女性教育应当全力倾向于爱情这唯一的一个重点，要让她们学会取悦男性。

让我给拥护这些观点的人讲讲道理：对人性有所认识的人们，会认为婚姻能够改变人的本性吗？一个只学习过如何取悦他人的女性，在热恋之后步入两相厮守的婚姻之时，很快就会发现她的魅力像夕阳余晖一样即将消散，无法再打动她丈夫的心灵。那时她能有足够的本能去寻找内心的安适、发掘她自己的潜能吗？更顺理成章的可能是，她会试图取悦其他男性，在征服一个新的崇拜者的幻想中忘掉婚姻所带给她的、对她爱情与尊严的屈辱。丈夫的爱慕之情不可避免地会消逝，这个女子取悦于人的欲望也随之变得淡薄，或者又会成为她痛苦的根源。而爱情，这所有感情中最无常的一种，也许就会被嫉妒或空虚所取代。

我们再来看看那些坚守原则或者说是被偏见所束缚的女性。这些被丈夫无情冷落的女性，虽然未行私通之事，却热衷于享受男性的殷勤奉承，或者日思夜想，沉迷于遇到一个灵魂相属之人的白日梦，弄得自己健康败坏、精神苦闷。既然如此，为什么还要要求她们必须学习取悦于人的伟大艺术？那是情妇才用得上的技艺。作为忠贞的妻子、端庄的母亲，女性应当只把取悦他人的能力作为对美德的一种修饰而已。来自丈夫的爱情能够帮助她缓和持家辛劳的安慰，让她的生活更加幸福。但是，无论是被爱着还是被忽视了，她应当首先关注的都是让自己成为可敬的人，而不是把她所有的幸福都寄托在一个与她同样受制于人性弱点的男人身上。

可敬的格雷戈里博士在这个问题上犯了同样的错误。我尊重他的用心，但对于他那享有盛誉的《父亲的赠女遗言》则完全不敢苟同。

他建议女儿们培养对于服饰的癖好，因为他认为这是女子的“天性”。我不能理解，他和卢梭频繁地使用这个含义模糊的词是要指代什么？如果他们是想说，女性在诞生之前，她们的灵魂中已存在这种对于对服饰的热爱，并且一直被带进她们在尘世间的生命里的话，我会对这话一笑而过，就像每次我听到有人说“天生的优雅”这个词的时候一样。但是，如果他们只是想说，应当通过锻炼这方面的才能来培养这一癖好的话，我就不能同意他们。这不是“天性”，是“养成”，就好像男性被培养成沉迷权力，野心无边的人一样。

格雷戈里博士的主张远远不止于此，他实际上是要天真的女孩们学着虚伪，欺骗自己的感情。他告诫她们不要随心所欲地起舞，因为流畅的舞步会泄露心底的欢愉，而女孩子可不能让自己的举止有失端庄。看在真理与常识的分儿上，为什么一位女孩不可以承认她比其他女性更加勤于锻炼身体呢？或者，换句话说，为什么她不能承认她的身体比其他女性更健康？为什么要让天真无邪的快乐变得死气沉沉？为什么要暗地里跟她说，男性会根据她的行为对她下一些她根本没想过的结论？就让那些轻浮人们爱怎么想就怎么想吧，但是，我希望，明智的母亲不要拿这种不入流的警告去限制年幼的女儿们，让她们失去天然的襟怀坦白。言为心声，一个比所罗门更有智慧的人说过，人的心灵应该纯洁正派，但不要总为琐事萦怀。一个心中充满邪恶的人，也不难严格遵守那些琐碎的规矩。

女性应当让自己的心灵保持纯洁，但是她们能做到吗？未经培育的理性，让她们做事与取乐都完全依赖感觉。没有什么高贵的追求能把她们带离日常生活的空虚，她们也没有能力驾驭自己那杂乱无章的感情，就像芦苇，只消一丝风来就会随之摆动。她们想要得到一个高尚男子的爱情，不装模作样难道就做不到吗？

女性的身体确实生来比男性柔弱，但是我想问，如果她们因为承担女儿、妻子和母亲的角色而锻炼了身心，保持着健康的体格和精神，难道她们还必须要屈就于那些取悦的技艺、做出一副苍白柔弱的姿态，来留住丈夫的爱情吗？柔弱或许能激起柔情，满足男性傲慢的虚荣，但是来自于守护者的傲慢的照顾，并不能满足一颗渴望也值得尊敬的高贵心灵。轻怜蜜爱不过是夫妻间友善情谊的可怜的替代品！

我承认，在苏丹的后宫里这些取悦于人的技巧都是必需的。帝王就像美食家，必得精心装扮的美色来刺激，不然就了无兴致。但是女性的抱负真会如此卑微，以至于能满足于这样的处境吗？她们是否梦想摆脱充斥着享乐或乏味沉闷的生活？她们是否想要追求理性的快乐，让自己因为追求人类高尚的美德而为世人所瞩目？把生命都消磨在打扮自己上的女性，也许能以她们的笑容和小把戏帮着男性打发掉无聊的时光、抚慰他们的忧虑，但她们不可能拥有不朽的灵魂。

并且，身心强健的女性，会因为管理家庭和追求美德而成为她丈夫的朋友，而不是从属于他的依赖者。如果她一直都表现出这些良好的品质，那么她就值得她丈夫的尊敬，她既不会觉得有必要隐瞒她的感情，也没有必要伪装出一副不自然的冷淡性情来挑起丈夫的激情。事实上，翻开历史，我们就会发现，那些最杰出的女性，既不是女性当中最漂亮的也不是最温柔的。

造物主，或者更恰当地说是上帝，已经安排好了所有的事情，但是男性觉得他们与其他的造物不同，破坏了这种秩序。我说的是格雷戈里博士的一段文章，他建议妻子不要让丈夫知道她真实的感受与情感。这种预防欲望消退的手段既无效又荒唐。爱情从本质上来讲就是短暂易逝的。想要找到能让它永恒不变的秘诀，就像寻找点金石与万灵药一样疯狂，也同样不会有结果，对人类更没有任何好处。人与人之间最神圣的纽带是友谊，就像一位眼光独到的讽喻诗人所说的那样“真正的爱情已然难觅，真正的友情更加珍稀”。

这是很显然的道理，原因也不难理解，稍加思考即可明白。

在爱情里，运气和感觉取代了选择和理性，这种感情绝大多数人都或多或少会体会到。在这里的分析中，我们没必要再对爱情分出三六九等。爱情在悬而未决或遭遇阻挠时会自然地加强，让人的理性脱离常态，燃起热烈的情感，而婚姻的保障，则会让爱情的狂热逐渐平息。可那些没有足够才智的人，无力以宁静亲切的友谊和相互尊重的信任，取代盲目的赞美和肉体上的吸引，婚姻中感情的正常热度对他们来说索然无味。

爱情必将继之以友谊或冷淡，这是自然的法则。这个规律看起来与人类精神世界中普适的支配规律完全一致。热情激发了行动，人的眼界因此得以开阔，但当目标达成之后，人们心满意足地停歇下来，那热情便沦落为赤裸的欲望，自私地只关心自己转瞬即逝的满足感。那些野心勃勃的人们，在奋斗时尚有着一些美德，但在达到目标后却常常会变得荒淫霸道，这些昏聩的人们会被幼稚的任性和盲目的嫉妒冲昏了头，还像情人一样对待妻子，把人生的重任抛之脑后，把本该给予子女以取得他们信任的爱怜照顾都滥用在了他那大号孩子一样的妻子身上。

为了履行人生的责任，为了有充沛的精力去进行各种有益德行的活动，一个家庭的男女主人不该再继续狂热地相爱。我的意思是，他们不该沉溺于这种有违社会常理的感情，侵占了本该用于关注其他事情的注意力。人的心灵需要活力，不应该长久地被单一的事物所占据，总是想着同一件事情的心灵，是衰弱的。

女性接受了错误的教育和许多有关性别的偏见，养成了狭隘而缺乏教养的心灵，这些都使得女性比男性更加忠贞，但是我暂不讨论这个问题。我还想更进一步地说明，不幸的婚姻对家庭有利，而被冷落的妻子更有可能成为最好的母亲。如果女性的心智能够得到充分的发展，她们也都会像我这样想。这是因为，造物主总有这样的安排：当下的欢愉是在消耗生命的宝藏，这是经验之谈，我们无法在及时行乐的同时，还收获到勤劳与智慧的宝贵果实。路就摆在我们面前，我们必须选择其一。那些选择享乐生活的人，就不能再抱怨她们没能得到智慧和值得尊敬的品格。

我们暂时做个假设，假设灵魂并非永恒不朽，那么人类生来便只活在当下，我们就有理由抱怨说，爱情真是幼稚的喜好，总会渐渐变得乏味，甚而令人生厌。在这种情况下，“让我们饕餮畅饮吧，让我们沉醉于爱情吧，因为明天我们就将死去”，就是合理的说法，甚至称得上是至理名言——除了傻子，谁会舍下眼前，去追求那稍纵即逝的幻影呢？人的行为只有在与无限的未来以及伟大的愿景联系在一起的时候，才会显示出它的高尚与重要。所以，如果我们能够认识到思想那令人敬畏的、改进的力量，我们一定不会再把我们的愿望以及想法再局限在如此卑微的境地里。那我们还有什么必要去做这些错误的事情？又为什么非要违反神圣的真理，去留住那些会侵蚀美德之基石的虚假的美好呢？为什么女性的心灵一定要沾惹卖弄风情的技巧，就为了满足那些好色之徒吗？为什么要阻止爱情转化为友情，或者当建立友情所需的要素还不具备时，转化为温柔的怜惜呢？让最诚实的心灵展现它本来的面目吧，让理性引领感情听命于天道吧，让追求美德与知识的高尚之举带领心灵超脱于人类的感情之上吧——若无心灵施加适当的节制，它们只会在生命之杯中斟满苦酒而非佳酿。

以上所述并不针对那些伟大天才的浪漫爱情，谁能压制那样的感情呢？但是这伟大爱情所带来的有限的欢愉，与投入其中的无限的热情不成比例，这热情完全源于人内心的感觉，也只能赖其维持。那些以持久著称的热烈爱情总是不幸的，它们能够得以维持都是因为爱人的离去或求之不得的悲伤。距离产生美——而狎昵则可能令倾慕变为反感，或至少是无感，于是空闲下来的想象力会开始寻找新的对象。我合情合理地猜想，卢梭就是出于这种想法，才让他的精神恋人爱洛伊丝在生活日渐无味之时爱上圣·普瑞的，但这并不足以成为热情可以不朽的证据。

出于同样观点，格雷戈里博士向女性建议，如果她们决定结婚，就不要再向往浪漫的爱情。这个判断与他之前的建议完全一致，可他认为做出这样的决定并不体面，所以殷切地叮嘱女儿们尽可按此行事，却不可将之宣之于口，好像拥有人类天性中的欲望是见不得人的似的。

真是高贵的道德准则啊！正好适合那些无力超越眼前狭小世界的谨小慎微的灵魂。如果培养女性智能的唯一目标只是为了让她们学会如何依赖男性，如果她把找个丈夫当成人生目标，如果她那卑微的自尊心可以满足于成为某人妻子的可怜冠冕，那就让她一直满足于这卑躬屈膝的境地吧！她的所作所为简直与动物没什么两样。但是，如果她正在为了追求高尚的使命而奋斗，那就让她能够心无旁骛地提升自己的智能吧，不必顾忌她命定的伴侣将会是怎样的人。让她不要过于渴求眼前的欢愉，而专注于追求那些能够让理性的生灵变得更加高贵的品质吧！一个粗鲁不文的丈夫也许会因为不合她的品位而让她难受，但却不能撼动她心灵的安宁。她会忍受伴侣的不足，但不会让自己的灵魂去迁就他的缺陷。他的性格也许会带给她困扰，却不能阻碍她对美德的追求。

如果格雷戈里博士所言只是对恒久爱情与相知之情的浪漫期待，他应该知道，这种活跃的幻想会导致理智的缺位，旁人的忠告不能让我们停止做梦，只有在自己接受了教训之后，我们才会不再耽于幻想。

我承认女性常对感情抱有一种不切实际的浪漫幻想，日复一日把生命都浪费在想象如果丈夫能够以一种与日俱增的热烈情怀来爱慕着自己的话，会有多么幸福。她们无论是否已婚都觉得痛苦，幻想有个完美伴侣和有个不堪的丈夫都一样让她们郁闷。我可以肯定，适当的教育，或者更确切地说，得到充分发展的理性，足以让单身女性过上体面的生活；但是那种认为女性不应培养自己的品位，以免她因为丈夫与她的品位不合而受到打击的说法，实在是因噎废食了。老实说，我不知道如果一个人不能坦然面对生活中的不如意，或者不能由单纯的心灵活动中获得源源不断的喜悦，那么她培养高尚的品位有什么用？有品位的人，无论已婚或单身，都会厌烦那些无法触动心灵的事物。这个结论当然不足以支持我们的论点；但是在人类能够享有的全部喜悦中，品位真的能被看作是天赐福惠吗？

这个问题的答案，取决于品位会更多地带来痛苦还是快乐？它将决定格雷戈里博士建议的正当性，并且会告诉我们他的建议是多么的荒谬和专断：他想要用来教育人们的规则，并非出自纯粹的理性且适用于全人类，实际上是在建立一种奴役制度。

温和有礼、克己容让、恒久忍耐，都是如此可敬爱的神圣品性，以至于神圣的诗篇都赞颂它们是上帝的德行。也许在上帝所有的神圣之行中，再没有什么其他德行能像他无限的慈悲与宽容一样，如此有力地维系着人类对他的热爱了。从这个角度考虑，温柔是一种伟大的品质，是强者对弱者优雅的俯就。可是人们可能因为各种原因而表现得温柔顺从。有时候它是依赖者因为想要得到保护而做出的顺从的表示，因为其软弱的爱情需要支持。它也可能是弱者因为无力反抗伤害而不得不忍气吞声。这是多么悲惨的境况啊，可这就是在那些关于完美女性的建议之下，一位有教养的女士活生生的生活。那些徒有其名的理论家把女性的完美与人类的完美完全割裂开来了。或者，他们（参见卢梭和斯韦登伯格的著作）最好把那根肋骨物归原主，重新再创造出一个亦男亦女的有道德的人出来，并且要记得赋予此人“顺从的魅力”。

我们没有听说过那些未曾婚嫁的女性是如何生活的。因为道德家们一方面认为男性生活的要义在于不断地通过各种历练为未来做好准备，另一方面又有志一同地建议女性只要活在当下就好。于是，温柔、驯顺、如宠物般的惹人怜爱被当成了女性美德的金科玉律。更有一位作家不顾不可违抗的自然法则，声称沉思的女性太男性化了。女性生来就该是男性的玩物，像个拨浪鼓一样，在任何他不想思考、需要找点乐子的时候，叮叮咚咚地响起来。

事实上，劝导女性要温柔基本上是合理的，因为脆弱的人理当如此。但是如果忍耐到了混淆是非的地步，温柔就不再是一种美德。虽然有个温柔的伴侣对于一个人来说是很便利的，但这样的伴侣时常会被认为低人一等，只能被对方施舍似的温柔以待，并且这温柔还会很容易退化为轻蔑。即使如此，如果这些建议能够让那些本性并不认同温柔这一美德的人们变得温柔起来的话，那么事情也能在某种程度上变好一些。可是，就像我们接下来要证明的那样，如果这混淆是非的建议只能让人变得装模作样、只能在人们逐渐成长与改善性情的道路上添设障碍的话，那么女性将并不能从这些建议中得到多少好处：她们牺牲了真正的美德以换取浮华的优雅，却不过得来三年五载的风光显赫罢了。

作为一个哲学家，我对于男性用来柔化他们冒犯女性的行为的那些似是而非的说法感到愤怒。作为一个道德主义者，我想问他们：诸如“美好的缺点”“可爱的弱点”一类自相矛盾的说法到底有何意义？如果道德只有一个标准，而且是给男性制定的，那么女性似乎生来就悬于道德的虚空之中——就像那个关于穆罕默德石棺的粗俗故事所说的那样，她们既没有动物一样可靠的本能，也无力修正人们关于完美女性模式的观念。她们生来就得被爱慕，却不能希望获得尊重，否则社会就会以男性化为理由孤立她们。

但是如果我们从另一个角度来看呢？消极怠惰的女性真的是最好的妻子吗？就看当下的现实好了，让我们来看看这样软弱的人会如何扮演她的角色？这些女性学得了一些肤浅的才艺教养，她们的行为强化了盛行的偏见。她们是否仅仅只是在取悦她们的丈夫，她们施展魅力是否只是为了娱乐他们？而且这些早年里接受了太多消极的顺从思想的女性，真的有足够的能力去管理一个家庭和教育后代吗？答案是否定的。在检视了女性的历史之后，我只能同意一位非常尖刻的讽刺作家的意见：女性是两性中比较软弱也比较受压迫的一方。历史记载中的女性，除了低劣，没有给人留下其他印象。有多少女性能够在男性统治的重轭之下把自己解放出来？太少了！以至于我由此想到一个关于牛顿的奇思妙想：说他很可能是误投人身的精灵。按照这个说法，我不禁猜想，那些极少数的超凡脱俗的女性之所以能够脱离性别所限定的轨道，是因为她们其实是误投了女儿身的男性。但是如果灵魂与性别无关，那么女性的低劣一定是由生理结构造成的，或者是在上帝抟土造人之时，天堂之火没能一视同仁地对待两种性别的泥胎。

但是截至目前，我一直都避免直接地比较两性群体，或者根据目前两性的表现而承认女性本质低劣。我一直强调，在女性几乎已经达不到理性生物基准线的情况下，男性又进一步加重了女性的低劣。我们应该给女性以充分的空间去施展她们的才能、巩固她们的美德，然后再来判定这个性别的人是否应当被认为是有理性的生物。同时请读者记住，我是在为了全体女性而非少数杰出的女士争取地位。

我们是平庸的凡人，很难想象当那阻碍了我们每一次进步的专制制度烟消云散之时，人类的成就与进步会到达何种高度。但是当人类的道德得以建立于一个较当前更为坚实的基础之上的时候，我不必有先知先觉的灵力，也敢于预测，女性要么会成为男性的朋友，要么会成为他们的奴隶。无论如何，我们都不会像现在这样，再去怀疑她是有道德的人，还是介于男性与牲畜之间的一种生物。如果那时女性如牲畜一般，主要是为了供男性驱使才被创造出来，他们也会使她们安于鞍辔，不会再用空洞的赞美来嘲弄她们。而如果她们的理性得到了提升，男性将不再只为了自己肉欲的满足而阻碍她们的进步。男性将不再花言巧语地劝诱女性，建议她们放弃理性，毫无保留地跟从男性的领导。对于女性教育的问题，他们不会再主张女性永不应有运用理性的自由，也不会再教唆想要同他们一样获得人类美德的女性变得狡诈虚伪。

如果道德建立在永恒的基石之上，那么人就只有一条正确的路。任何一个牺牲美德去换取眼前方便的人，或者以这样的方式去履行责任的人，都只是在混日子，不会成为一个负责任的人。

所以，诗人实在不该用这样的句子讥讽女性：“软弱的女人，一旦迷失，责怪指路的星斗多过她们自己。”这是因为：除非可以证明女性永远无法运用自己的理性、无法自立、无法超越别人的观点、无法感受一个理性的人只向上帝折腰的尊严；除非可以证明她们无法欣赏和效仿那些构成美德的品性，即使这些品性带给人的美好远远超过迷乱情思所带来的快乐；除非可以证明在这莫大的宇宙里，她们通常只记挂着自己以及心中热切向往的完美女性形象，那么她们被命运的锁链紧紧束缚才是必然的。

我不想让人觉得我只是善辩之人，但我认为理性能让女性清醒。如果她们能够表现得像个理智的生物，就不要把她们当成奴隶，也不要在她们与男性的交往中，让她们像任人处置的牲畜一样必须依赖于男性。让女性的心智得到培育，让她们受到有益的原则的约束，让她们只依赖上帝而不是其他凡人，并从中体会到尊严。让她们接受与男性同样的教育，遵从自然的法则，让她们成为具备美德的人，而不是只让她们更能取悦于人。

更进一步地说，就算经验告诉我们，她们无法在心智、坚忍与勇毅等方面达到与男性相当的程度，也应该让她们遵从同样的美德，只是无法达到同样的水平而已。这样的话，男性的优越性即使没有比现在更突出，至少也和现在一样清晰。而真理，作为两性共同遵守的基本准则，也不需要任何修改。而且，当前的社会秩序也不需有任何变化，因为女性将只能安守理性赋予她们的位置，不再能靠着耍些小花招来改变两性的相对地位，更不要说让它翻转。

这些也许被认为是不切实际的梦想。但我感谢上帝在我的灵魂里播下这梦想的种子，感谢他给我足够的心智力量，敢于行使我自己的理性，直到我能够只依赖他来帮助我坚守美德。我对那些奴役女性的错误观点，感到愤慨。

我对男性抱有一种平等的爱。男性的特权，无论是真实的还是篡夺的，都无法令我低头，除非他们的理性值得我的尊敬。而即使我顺从，对象也是理性，而不是某一个人。事实上，一个负责任的人，他的行为必然会受到其理性的规范，否则上帝的尊严何在？

女性受到了损害，因此我不嫌辞费，论及上述显而易见的真理，我认为这是必要的。女性被剥夺了生而为人应当具备的美德，被教授以各种造作的优雅，以博取昙花一现的好时光。在她们的心中，爱情取代了其他所有更为高贵的情感，她们唯一的抱负就是成为一个美人儿，唤起男性的激情而不是尊敬。这种卑微的追求，就像是君主专制国家所培育出的奴性一样，毁掉了一切品格的力量。自由是美德的基石，如果女性生来就是奴隶，不被允许自由地呼吸那生机勃勃的空气，她们会永远像异乡孤旅之人一般感到苦闷，成为造物主美丽的错误——请注意，她们也是万能的造物主手下唯一的错误。

要求女性驯服的观点，反过来也会作用于男性。多数人总是被少数人统治，而且总是那些几乎不具备丝毫人类美德的怪物，在欺压着他们成千上万的同胞。有什么理由让才华卓著之人听命于这种怪物？总体来看，国王们无论是在才能还是品德上，都还不如随便找来的一群数量相仿的普罗大众，这难道不是大家的共识吗？然而，国王们却曾经并且仍然在享有某种程度的尊荣，这难道不是对理性的羞辱吗？中国并不是唯一一个会把活着的凡人美化成神衹的国家。男性屈从于上位者的权势，以换取刹那的欢愉——女性不过做了和他们相同的事情。因此，除非我们能证明那些彻底放弃了人类与生俱来的权利的权臣乃是行尸走肉，否则我们就不能只因为女性一直处于被统治的地位，而指责她们在本质上比男性低劣。

哲学家们在阐释关于判定两性差别最为有用的知识时犹豫不决，未有定论。这证明，世界仍被野蛮的力量统治，而政治科学仍处于它发展的初期。

我深信，当善政得立、自由广传之时，包括女性在内的整个人类，都将变得更加明智与有德。不会再有什么，比这个论断更能表达我对此事的美好期望了。

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

第三章 再论关于两性特质的普遍成见

强健的体魄本来是英雄人物的优秀特性，如今却遭到了不恰当的轻蔑，无论男性还是女性，都认为它无足轻重。女性认为，好体魄会有损于她们的女性魅力，让她们失去可爱的柔弱之态——那可是她们谋取特权的手段。而男性则认为，强健的身体有损于他们的绅士气质。

我们很容易证明，他们都矫枉过正了。但是也许我们应该先来看看，当一个错误的观点在一定程度上被采信之后，人们是如何地以果为因，得出错误结论的。

天赋出众的人，时常因为专注研究而不注意健康令体质下降。对学习的狂热爱好就是他们活跃智能的重要支撑，以至于“剑利伤鞘”也是常有的事情。浅薄的人们看到这个，就断定天赋出众的人都生来体弱，或者用更时髦的话说，是纤柔文弱。然而在我看来，事实恰恰应该是相反的：经过仔细地研究，我发现，在大多数情况下，智能高超的人常常也有超人强健的体魄。他们是生来就拥有一副好身体，而不是仅仅从体力劳动中锻炼出粗疏的神经与发达的肌肉，却缺乏足够的脑力，甚至只懂得干手艺活儿。

普利斯特里博士曾经在他自传的前言中写道，大部分伟人寿命都在四十五岁以上。这些人轻率地挥霍着他们的体力：为了钻研钟爱的学问，他们通宵达旦不眠不休；沉醉于诗意的幻境时，他们浮想联翩、心动神移，不到神游引发的激情让身体疲惫到无法支持他们再继续幻想下去的时候，都不肯醒来。考虑到以上的因素，他们一定都有钢铁一样强健的好身体。无力的手指握不住莎士比亚的如椽巨笔，胆小的人不会有米尔顿的胆量敢放撒旦逃出牢狱。他们的作品充满了神奇的想象，绝不是愚人的胡言乱语或神经质的病态发作。若是要时时受限于体力，他们如何能够沉浸在这“神奇的狂放”里？

我知道，上述言论会把我带向比人们以为我所要谈论的内容更加深远的层面。但我追随真理，并始终坚守着我最初的观点：我可以承认男性在体力方面似乎生来强过女性，而且这也是男性优越地位唯一有力的证据。但我仍然坚持认为，两性之间无论在德行还是知识方面都不应该有实质性的差别，即使他们能达到的程度会有所不同。女性不应该像卢梭的低俗幻想所期望的那样，被教养成徒有其表的半人，她们不但应该被当作是有道德的人，也应该被当作是有理性的生灵，应当用与男性一样的方法去追寻人类的美德（或者说是完美的状态）。

但是，如果强健的体魄真的是值得人类夸耀的事情，那么为何女性会如此执迷于为身体羸弱的缺陷而自豪呢？卢梭为此提供了一个看似有理的借口——这种借口只有男性才能想得出来，因为只有他们才被容许有如此狂放不羁的幻想，再精细地把它们包装成体面的样子。他说，女性这样做也许是因为如此一来她们便能有一个理由去听从自然的欲望，又不破坏她们富有浪漫气息的端庄，而这正可以满足男性的虚荣傲慢与享乐之心。

女性被这些观点欺骗，时常以自己的柔弱为荣，狡猾地利用男性的弱点来攫取权利力。她们也总是会为自己不正当的权力而感到异常骄傲，因为她们就像土耳其的帕夏一样，掌握着比主人更大的实权。可是她们的所作所为，是为了一时的欢愉而牺牲了美德，因片刻的胜利而放弃了一生的尊严。

女性在家庭中所实际掌握的权力，以及君主在国家中所实际掌握的权力，或许要比根据理性原则建立的法律所赋予他们的要多。通过进一步的比较可以发现，在获取权力的过程中，他们的品格堕落了，并且向整个社会散布着放荡的风气。多数人被压迫，少数人作威作福。我由此大胆地断言，除非女性能够获得更为合理的教育，否则人类美德的提升与知识的进步都会不断地遇到阻碍。如果我们承认女性被创造出来不仅仅只是为了满足男性的欲望或者成为照顾他们饮食起居的管家妇，那么，那些真正关注女性教育的父母们首先应该关心的问题就是：如果不能增强女孩的体质，至少不要再因为那些关于美貌以及女性魅力的错误观点而损害她们的身体。女孩们也不应该再被那种认为缺点能够被一些奇妙的思维过程转变为优点的错误观念毒害。我很开心地发现，我国所出版的最有益处的童书之一的作者在这方面与我的思想不谋而合，我将引用一些他的相关评论，他那可敬的权威意见会帮助加强我的推理。

即使可以证明女性天生比男性体弱，但从哪里能证明还应该让她们的身体变得比生来的还弱？这一类观点，不但是对常识的侮辱，还饱含着情欲的意味。人们认为夫权如同君权，俱出天授。但我希望在如今进步中的时代里，反抗夫权已不会令我们遭遇险境。并且，虽然我的观点，也许仍无法说服许多夫权的狂热拥护者，但当盛行的偏见遇到挑战之时，明智的人会认真思虑，而那些偏执愚顽之人，就让他们对着新思想继续牢骚满腹吧。

希望自己女儿拥有真正高贵品格的母亲，必须无视那些无知者的嘲讽，选择一套与卢梭所鼓吹的模式完全相反的教育方法。这位先生巧舌如簧，极尽诡辩之能事，想把他那一套荒谬的理论打扮得合理起来，他武断的说法虽然自相矛盾，但也确实迷惑了一些没有能力驳倒他的人们。

整个动物界的所有幼小生灵都在不停地锻炼身体，婴儿期的人类也应当服从这一法则，通过没有危险的运动锻炼自己的手脚，他们不需要事无巨细的指点或者保姆无微不至的关注。事实上，孩子在锻炼中会学到必须要对自我保护投以必要的关注，这是他们的理性自然而然地在进行最初的练习，这与他们在玩耍中那些自娱自乐的小创意会帮助锻炼想象力是一个道理。但是自然界这一伟大的设计却因我们错误的溺爱或盲目的热情而不能发挥作用。孩子们，尤其是女孩们，没有一刻能按自己的意志行事，他们就这样变得依赖他人——我们却以为他们生来就有依赖性。

为了维持优美的体态——这才是女性值得引以为傲的东西嘛——当男孩们在户外玩耍，女孩子们却被比中国的裹脚布还要糟糕的服饰捆绑着，并被告知她们应当安坐度日，这让她们肌肉乏力、精神涣散。按照卢梭和后来应和他的那些作家们的观点，女孩自降生到世上便喜欢洋娃娃、衣饰和闲聊，这与教育无关。他们的观点幼稚得不值一驳。一个被迫一坐几个小时、听保姆无知闲话或陪着母亲打扮的女孩，会尝试着加入谈话，实在是很自然的。这天真可怜的孩子，她会模仿着母亲或阿姨打扮她的样子，装扮她那毫无生气的玩偶以自娱自乐，这无疑也是再自然不过的事。即便是才华卓著的男性，也很难有足够的力量完全超脱于他们所处的环境。如果天才也时常会被其所处时代的偏见误解和埋没，那么像君王一样总是要通过错误的媒介认识事情的女性，就更应该得到谅解。

从这个角度来看，我们不必假定女性想要取悦她们所依附的男性，也能很容易地说明为什么她们会特别热衷于服饰。简言之，就算不考虑女孩子所受到的那些会过早地煽动起她们幻想的不恰当的教育，和那种假设女孩生来就爱卖弄风情，认为她们具有因种族繁衍的自然冲动所激发的欲望的观点，其荒谬之处仍然清晰可见。这些观点是如此违背逻辑，以至于像卢梭这样敏锐的观察家，若不是因为惯于为了满足自己的猎奇之欲与立异之心，而放弃理性与真理，是不会接受这样的观点的。

对于一个如此热烈而完美地为灵魂的不朽进行辩护的人来说，通过性别来给心灵分类与他奉行的原则并不相符——在他的假设面前，真理的力量简直不值一提！卢梭尊敬（几乎说得上是崇拜）美德，然而他放任自己的情感沉溺于肉欲。他那源源不断的想象支撑着高涨的欲念，然而他的心灵又不能不热烈地向往着诸如克己、坚忍之类的英雄主义的美德，为了调和这种矛盾，他不惜歪曲自然法则，编造有害的教条，损害人类最高的智慧。

他不考虑日常生活中的实际情况，编造荒谬的故事，想证明女孩生来就在乎她们的容貌、体态，这可真是卑鄙。他说有个小女孩只是因为注意到自己写字母“O”时的姿态不够美丽，就放弃了写字的乐趣，他认为这对女孩子而言是正当的趣味。这样的故事简直就像想找到一头博学多才的猪一样异想天开。

我也许比让-雅克·卢梭有更多的机会观察年幼的小女孩们。我仍记得自己年幼时的感受，并且我也在不断地观察着周围的人。然而，我不但不能同意卢梭关于女性天性的观点，我还要大胆地断言：如果一个女孩子，她的精神没有被无聊的生活败坏、她的天真没有被错误的羞耻感玷污的话，她会一直是个活泼的孩子，洋娃娃也不会激起她的兴趣，除非封闭的生活令她没有别的选择。简言之，要不是人们很早就开始向孩子们灌输男女之别的观念，女孩和男孩在自然的性别差异产生之前本可以毫无障碍地一起玩耍。我还要进一步断言，在我的观察范围里，大多数表现得像个理性生物或者有些见识的成年女性，都曾因缘际会地得以自由发展。这一点毋庸置疑，但很多优雅的女性教育家却对此语带讥讽。

在婴幼儿与少年时期不注重身体健康的恶果比我们想象的要大，身体上的依赖性必然会导致精神上的依赖性。而且，如果女性把大部分时间都用来提防和忍受病痛，她如何能够成为好妻子和好母亲呢？我们又如何能指望，一直以造作的美丽和虚伪的情感为行事出发点的女性，能够不断努力地增强体质以及戒除那些会令人衰弱的放纵行为呢？大多数男性有时不得不忍受身体的不便或经历严寒酷暑，而文雅的女士们，简直可以说是身体的奴隶，竟然还以此为荣。

我曾结识一位身体柔弱的时尚女士，她极其为自己的纤细娇弱和多愁善感而感到骄傲。她认为挑剔的胃口和袖珍的食量乃是人类完美的最高标准，并且对此身体力行。我曾看着这柔弱世故的人，把一切人生责任摆在一边，扬扬自得地斜倚在沙发上，自夸食欲不振以证明自己的敏感纤柔，而这纤柔敏感正与她那过分的多愁善感互为表里：这种荒唐的理论真令人莫名其妙。而且，那时我还看到她对一位可敬的年长女士态度不敬，这位女士因意外之祸如今只得依附于她那骄矜的救济，但在往昔境况好时是曾帮助过她的。一个人，是如何才会变得如此衰弱和堕落的？就算是像锡巴里斯人一样耽于享乐的人，如果品性尚未全然败坏，会如此行事吗？就算是那些从未被道德戒律——这些规则虽然是为了防止人们作恶，但实际上却只是理性的一个蹩脚的替代品——约束的人，会如此行事吗？

古罗马的君王因为掌握了缺乏法律约束的权力而堕落，这样的一位女士不会比他们更像是毫无理性的怪物。然而由于君王更多地受限于法律与荣誉的约束（虽然这约束十分无力），所以历史中并不是随处可见这种违背人性的、愚顽残忍的例子。将美德与天赋扼杀于萌芽之中的专制暴政也没有席卷欧洲——这种暴政曾经毁了土耳其，不但扼杀人的才能，也令土地变成不毛之地。

随处都有女性陷入这种可悲的境地。这是因为，人们为了保持她们的天真——实际上这不过是无知的美称——不让她们接触到真理。在她们的才能得到任何发展之前，她们已经被赋予了造作的性情。她们自幼就被教导说，美貌就是女性的权势所在，她们的心灵被困囿于肉身，围着自己的皮囊打转，所思所想不过是如何令其更加美丽。男性有很多可以分散注意力的工作和追求，这开阔了他们眼界。但是女性，被迫只能一直想着她们最无关紧要的部分，极少能看到眼前得失之外的东西。她们的认知被男性的傲慢和欲望所奴役，沉迷于那像暴君一样作威作福的短视的欲望。一旦她们摆脱了这些东西，我们就会为曾经出现在她们身上的那些弱点感到吃惊的。接下来，请容许我把讨论进行得更深入一些。

如果《圣经》的寓言故事中所说的那个四处择人而噬的魔鬼是存在的，那么也许他最能使人类堕落的手段莫过于给予一个人绝对的权力。

这个观点可以从下面几个方面来论述。出身、财富以及所有天生的优势，可以让一个人不需要花费什么心力便凌驾于同胞之上，可这实际上却让他无法通过努力成才。这个人有越多弱点，就越会被狡诈的人玩弄利用，直到他身体里住着的那个自大的魔鬼丧失了全部人性。而人们就好似一群温顺的绵羊一样追随着这样的人，这种不合理的情形只能被解释为他们见识短浅、只追求眼前的享受。人们被训练得像奴隶一般依赖他人，在奢靡与懒散中变得衰弱无力，到哪里去找敢于为主张人类的权利而站出来的人呢？有道德的人才应该享有特权，他们获得优越地位的唯一途径就是有人为他们主张这种权利，可是又到哪里去找敢于这样做的人呢？人们仍然被君王权贵奴役，这个世界要摆脱这种奴役还有很长的路要走，而压迫者也在拼命地阻挡着人们思想的进步。

因此如果男性仍然以权势自矜，他们就不要再使用与暴君、谗臣如出一辙的理由，再去错误地断言：女性应该保持服从，因为她们一直如此。如果到了男性受到合理的法律约束、享受天赋的自由的时候，而女性仍不懂得享受它们，那时男性再来嘲笑她们吧！在那光荣的时代到来之前，当他们大谈女性的愚蠢时，可千万别忘了他们自己的缺点。

女性确实通过不正当的手段攫取权力，她们自己做出或鼓励不道德的行为，不是成为了卑下的奴隶，就是成为了无常的暴君。这显然与理性赋予人类的秩序不符。在追求权力的过程中，她们失去了所有的天真质朴和精神的尊严，就像男性在通过类似的手段攫取权力的过程中所做出的表现一样。

是时候彻底革新女性气质，交还给她们失落的尊严，让她们成为人类的一部分了。她们重塑自己行为的同时也会改变世界。是时候将不可改变的道德与一时一地的风俗区分清楚了。如果男性只是被神化的人，凭什么要求我们女性去侍奉他们？如果女性是否有灵魂是像牲畜是否有灵魂一样有争议的话题，如果她们的理性不足以指引自己的行为却又缺乏正确的本能，那她们确实是所有生灵里最悲惨的一种，只能匍匐在命运的铁拳之下，承认自己是造物中的一个美丽的缺陷。但是，要证明上帝如此创造女性是合理的，要找出一些无可辩驳的理由来证明有必要让如此大比例的一部分人类有能力为自己负责却又不能为自己负责，即使是最狡猾的诡辩家也会为此而大伤脑筋。

道德唯一可靠的基础就是上帝的品质。我满怀敬畏之心地看到，上帝品质中的每一种属性都必然要求另一种属性的存在，这各种属性之间的平衡就是上帝品质的和谐性所在。他必然是公正的，因为他是智慧的；他必然是善良的，因为他全知全能。以牺牲另一种同样高贵并且不可或缺的属性为代价，去拔高某一种属性，是善变的人类一时头脑发热才会做出的事情。蒙昧时期的人类习惯于服从权力，就算到了文明已经证明思想的力量远比肉体的力量优越的时候，人们也很少能让自己摆脱这种野蛮的偏见。他们的思想即使是在想着上帝的时候，也仍然被野蛮的观点所蒙蔽。在他们看来全知全能是上帝所有属性中至高的一种，如果有人认为上帝也是通过智慧来实现自己的全知全能的话，就会被他们认为是在企图限制上帝的权力。

在考察过自然之后，我不能认同那种只献给上帝的谦逊。至高无上的上帝，与永恒同在，无疑会有很多我们无法想象的属性，但是理性对我说，它们不会与我所崇拜的那些属性相冲突，我无法忽视这个声音。

人类想要追求卓越是很自然的事情，方式或者是通过追求他们崇拜的东西本身，或者是通过给这东西盲目地披上完美的外衣，这些都可以理解。但是这后一种方式的崇拜对于一个理性生物的道德行为会有什么好处吗？他屈从于权势；他崇拜黑暗的力量，这力量也许会为他带来一线希望，也许会突然对他发怒起来；这虔诚的人将无法了解那无常的怒火是因何而起。并且，假如他所信奉的神是在一种缺乏约束的意志的一时冲动之下行事的话，那么这个人做事的时候也会跟随他自己的冲动，或者是遵循一些从他自己都认为无礼的原则中推导出来的规则。无论是热忱的思考者还是冷静的思想家，当他们想要使人脱离上帝品质所指引的合理观念的时候，都会遇到类似这样的两难境地。

审视上帝的属性并非不敬之举。事实上，哪个磨炼自己才能的人能不这样做呢？对于一个追寻美德或知识的人来说，唯一有益的热爱上帝的方式，就是将他视为智慧、美好与力量的源泉。盲目易变的感情就像人类的欲念一样，能占领人的意识、温暖人的心灵，但是它们也会让人忘了要公正行事、宽容他人以及谦恭地追随上帝。格雷戈里博士认为宗教是一个情感或品位的问题，我对此不能苟同，稍后我会更加深入地讨论这个问题。

让我们回归主题：我期望女性会对她们的丈夫抱有爱慕之情，这种感情应该与对信仰的爱建立在相同的基础之上。这是家庭幸福唯一的基石。她们应该注意不要被所谓的“爱情”迷惑，那通常不过是肉欲享乐的粉饰之语。因此，我认为女性要么应该像东方的王子一样自幼便过着与世隔绝的生活，要么就该教给她们独立思考和行事。

为什么男性会在这两种意见之间犹豫不决，期待不可能的事情发生呢？我们文明社会的制度即使没有将女性变成恶毒之人，也已经让她们变得软弱，为什么要期望这样的奴隶能具备美德？

我知道，要根除感官主义者所播下的根深蒂固的偏见需要相当长的时间。我们也需要一些时间才能让女性明白：当她们为了“娇美”而让自己变得或装得很柔弱的时候，她们是在极大地违背自己真正的利益。而女性的恶习与愚钝，都是由人们对美色（一般来说人们习惯用“美貌”这样比较和缓的说法）的充满欲望的推崇而来。有一位德国作家曾经敏锐地指出：几乎所有的男性都承认，年轻貌美的女性是欲望追逐的目标。而一位富有智慧之美的女性，虽然能够激起一些男性更加高尚的感情，却也时常被一些耽于享乐的男性忽视或冷落。我知道我显然会受到反驳：既然男性一直都是这样不完美的生物，他必将或多或少为欲望所累。而那些凭借取悦占主导地位的男性而获取最大权力的女性，她们的堕落，即使不是道德上的必然，也是身体上的必然。

我承认，这个反驳有它有道理的地方。但是就像那伟大的戒律所言：“洁净自己，因你的天父是洁净的。”这样看来，男性的美德并未受到唯一有资格约束它的上帝的约束；而他原本可以义无反顾，不去想抱有如此崇高的心愿是否超越了自己能力所及的范围。曾有人对着滔天巨浪说道：“你只可到这里，不可越过。你狂傲的浪要到此止住。”浪潮只能听从于号令一切的伟大神明，空自翻腾咆哮，似在轨道上运行的行星一般无法越雷池一步。但是一个不朽的灵魂，并非为力学规律所支配，它能努力让自己摆脱物质的枷锁，它会促成而不是破坏造物主的秩序。它与上帝一道，试着按照支配宇宙的永恒戒律（在某种程度上这超越我们所能想象的范围）来要求自己。

而且，如果女性被教导要依赖他人，也就是说，依另一个同样容易犯错的人的意志行事，不问对错只服从于权力，那我们的界限又将在哪里呢？她们只有做个代理人的小小权限吗？只能去以行动贯彻一个更高的意志却连对错都不能问吗？

不难证明，这样一个他人意志的代表，将与那些被恐惧所控制的男性们一般行事，并使子女和仆从都处于其专横的控制之下。她们缺乏理性，因此她们的言行无论是善良还是残酷其实都无一定规律可循，不过是一时兴起罢了。要是遇上她们恃强凌弱，那也没什么稀奇的，她们很享受施压于弱者的恶毒乐趣。

但是，假设一位被调教得很顺从的女性与一位明智的先生结婚了。他引领她做出自己的判断，却不让她感到自己要服从到低三下四的地步。他传授给她理性，并帮助她达到在理性的光辉照耀之下可以达到的最好程度。然而她无法保证这位守护者能活得长长久久，他也许会英年早逝，那她就得独力支撑一个大家庭。

对于孩子，她得一身担起父母双亲的责任：不但得塑造他们的品质，还得保全他们的财产。但是啊，她从来都未曾自己想过事情，更别说独立做事了。她只学习过如何取悦男性、如何姿态优雅地依附于他们，但如今有了孩子的牵绊，她哪里还能再找到另一个守护人，一个为她提供理性的丈夫呢？我们并非生活在一个充满浪漫的世界里，所以一位理智的男士，也许会觉得某位拖家带口的女士是个美丽温顺的美人儿，但他不会娶她，世上还有很多其他年轻貌美的姑娘呢。她会变成什么样呢？要么轻易地被卑鄙的骗子骗到手，他会夺走本应由她的孩子继承的财产，让她陷于痛苦凄凉。要么成为不甘的牺牲者以及盲目的纵容者：她既无力教育自己的孩子，也无法获得他们的尊重——如果人们本身不值得尊敬，那么即使占据着重要的位置，也无法赢得敬意。我这么说可不是在玩文字游戏——她将为自己的徒劳无力而追悔莫及。她的灵魂被毒液侵蚀，年轻时的放荡终将令她痛苦，或许还会同时带给她贫苦的生活，除了死亡无以解脱。

这不是夸大其词，相反，它很有可能会发生，善于观察的人们不难在自己身边发现类似的事例。

虽然经验表明，盲者即使走在平坦的路上也一样容易跌倒，我仍假定她会一切顺利。虽然不太可能，但是假如真有一个人只会取悦他人，并且还一直都为此而扬扬自得，那她对于她那天真的小女儿来说，会是一个多么愚蠢，甚至可以说是罪恶的榜样呀！这位母亲会在与女儿的斗艳中败下阵来，她会为此而嫉妒自己的女儿，无法与她们成为朋友；她视女儿为自己的对手——比其他所有人都更加残酷的竞争对手，因为人们总爱拿母女来做比较，而从未向往过理性的母亲被女儿夺走了美丽的桂冠。

我们无须生花之笔或是漫画家的功底，也很容易就能描绘出这样一位女主人所能散播的家庭不幸以及琐碎恶行。其实她只不过是做了按照卢梭的理论体系所培养出来的女性该做的事情。她无论如何不能让人指责她有男子气，或者做出超越本分的事情。不但如此，她还会恪守卢梭提出的另一条伟大的信条：要小心翼翼地保护自己的名声不受玷污，好让人们承认她是位好女人。然而她有哪里能称得上是好呢？确实，她没有犯什么重罪，不过这不用多大努力就能做到，但是她是怎么履行她的责任的呢？事实是，她只有时间关心打扮自己以及保养娇弱的身体，根本顾不上责任的事情。

关于信仰，她从来不想自己做出评判。作为一个依赖者，她虔诚地相信从小在教堂仪式上被灌输的那些东西，相信所有的事情都已经被比她聪明的人安排好了：对她而言，完美就意味着从不怀疑。她拿薄荷与小茴香缴什一税，感谢上帝没有让她像其他一些女人一样缴不起税。上帝保佑，这就是那有益的教育的结果！这就是身为男性伴侣的美德！

我得转而描绘一个不同的形象，才能舒缓一下我此刻的心情。

现在让我们来想象一位多少有一点儿理性的女性——我这么假设是因为不想离开现实大众太远——她运动健身，身体有充分的活力。同时她的思想渐渐开阔，能够理解人生的道德责任、理解人类的美德与尊严因何而来。她通过履行与自己地位相称的责任而得到这些品质。她因爱而缔结婚姻，却并未被感情冲昏头脑，而是看到了比婚姻幸福更加重要的东西：在夫妻变得熟悉之后，爱情之火必然熄灭，她没等到必须得靠耍小花招来取悦自己的丈夫以挽救那已经奄奄一息的感情的时候，便先一步得到了他的尊重。在他们之间，友谊和宽容取代了之前热烈的感情。爱情自然而然地消逝了，他们没有为了想要努力挽回它而伤及家庭的宁静和睦。这里我也假定她丈夫是位正直的人，要不然她也许一直都还在努力争取按照自己的原则独立行事的权利，夫妻之间不可能达成我之前所描述的那种关系。

可惜命运拆散了他们，她变成了孀妇，也许还没什么家产，可是她过得并不凄惨！她当然会觉得痛苦，但这剧烈的悲痛渐渐地散去，时间帮她抚平了伤口，她虽然伤心，可是终于顺从了命运的安排。她开始加倍地关爱她的孩子，为了供养他们殚精竭虑，她的爱为母亲的职责增添了神圣的英雄主义色彩。孩子是她的所有慰藉，她知道他们会看到她那至善的努力，他们的赞许就是她的生命。她也在悲伤所激发的想象中仍怀抱着渺茫多情的希望，希望那双她曾用颤抖的双手合上的眼睛也同样能看到她是如何地克制着自己的感情，只为了可以凭一己之力善尽父母双亲的职责。厄运激发了她的勇气，让她在又一段感情自然萌生之时，便结束了这尚未成熟的爱情。她在如花的年华里忘掉了自己是个女人，忘掉了重新开始一段爱情可能会带来的愉悦欢畅。她不再想着取悦于人，清醒的尊严也使她不会因为别人对她行为的赞美而沾沾自喜。她仍常常怀念着那坟墓里的人，但是她爱着她的孩子，他们是她最光明的希望。

我好像看见了孩子们环绕在她左右，报答她的教养之恩。他们看向母亲的眼中闪烁着智慧之光，丰盈的颊上挂着天真健康的笑靥。他们长大成人后，充满感恩之心地照顾着母亲，抵偿了她生活的艰辛。她看到她根据原则所着力培养的美德已经变成固定的习惯，看到孩子们养成了足够坚强的性格，在面对艰难困苦时，他们总不会忘记母亲的榜样。

她一生的使命至此圆满完成，她平静地等待着死亡来临，当她从坟墓来到天堂，她可以对上帝说：“看啊，您给了我一千银钱，现在变成了五千银钱了。”

我想简短地总结一下我说过的话。我对传统观念提出挑战：我不同意美德有性别之分，就算柔顺也不例外。真理——如果我算是懂得这个词的意思的话——对于男性和女性必须是一致的。然而诗人和小说家竭力吹捧的那些幻想中的女性特质，却要求牺牲真理与纯真，美德变成了一种相对的概念，唯一的基础就是是否实用，而这种实用性是男性为了自己的方便而做出的专制的评判。

我同意，女性也许需要履行一些与男性不同的责任，但是两性的责任都应当是人类的责任，我坚持认为，用于规范这些行为的原则应该是一致的。

女性要想成为值得尊敬的人，必须要练习使用她们的理性，舍此无它能够支撑起独立自主的性格。我想明明白白地讲出来，她们必须要做到只向理性的权威折腰，而不是成为听命于舆论的、卑微的奴隶。

在上流社会里，别说是要找出一个才华出众的人，就是要找个一般人出来为什么都很难？在我看来，原因很清楚：他们生活在一个非自然的环境里。人类的品格从来都是在个人或阶级所从事活动中形成的。要是一个人的才能没有在实际需要中得到锻炼，就无法发展。这个观点也完全适用于女性：女性很少专心地做什么正经事，追欢逐乐的生活让她们养成了琐碎的性格，这就是贵族女性如此乏味的原因。出于同样的原因，她们都缺乏坚定的意志，性格迫使她们投身于喧嚣的消遣和造作的情感之中，直到交往中产生的所有感情都变得空虚，人性在她们身上已所剩无几。当前的市民政府对此却颇为赞成，以至于女性的柔顺像财富一样，都变成了令人堕落的东西——这两者产生的原因其实是一样的。但是如果我们承认女性是有理性的生物，她们就应当被鼓励去获得属于她们自己的美德。一个理性的人，如果没有通过自己的努力去得到一些东西，如何能赢得大家的尊重呢？

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

第四章 论导致女性堕落的各种原因

我想我们已经很清楚：女性到底是天生软弱，还是因为各种因素的共同作用而堕落了。在这里，我要将女性的境遇与另一种常见的论调做个简单的对比：支持贵族统治的聪明人总是说，不能太把民众当回事了，否则那些卑躬屈膝、甘受役使的奴隶们，就会认识到自己的重要性，并且要挣脱束缚他们的锁链了。他们进一步陈述说，受到奴役的人们其实只需扬起头来即可自束缚中解脱，可他们却处处屈服于压力。他们不去坚持主张与生俱来的权利，却默默地埋首屈从，还说：“我们就吃吃喝喝吧，因为明天就要死了。”与此相类似，我认为，女性的堕落也是出于同样的习性，她们尽情地享受当下，以至于到最后没有足够的德行来争取自由，于是她们反过来轻视自由。接下来，我必须就此做出更详尽的说明。

人们一致认为，对心灵的培养与性别无关。可是一谈到智力，女性就一直被认为不如男性。人们认为女性能够拥有的理性实在是少得可怜，她们只是“纯然地可爱”。既然她们的天赋和判断力都遭到了否定，也就很难再找到其他能够代表智力的东西了。

人类的灵魂之所以能够得以不朽（如果我可以用这个词的话），是因为人类的理性在不断地完善。这是因为，如果一个人生来就是完美的，或者在他成年以后知识的洪流就会充盈他的脑海，使他不会犯任何错误，那么我会怀疑，在肉体消散后他的灵魂是否还将继续存在。而目前的情况是，有很多问题人们讨论不出结果，连深刻的思想家和洞明的天才也对它们束手无策。这些正是我论证灵魂不朽的论据之一。理性当然是人类进步的基本动力，或者更确切地说，它给予我们辨识真理的力量。每个人的理性都自成一个世界。一个人的理性可能比另一个人的出众一些，但是如果它是来自神性的力量，是联系上帝与他的造物的纽带，那么所有人的理性的本质就一定是相同的——未曾通过理性自我完善的灵魂，怎能被铭刻以天堂的影像？然而女性的灵魂却不被允许得到这份殊荣，纵使她那精心装扮的外表，是如此的活色生香、令男性感到愉悦，“让他可以郑重其事地爱她”（参见弥尔顿的作品）。可是，男性永远都站在女性和理性之间：她总是被描绘成生来就只能透过他这个糟糕的媒介去看事物，并对他的观点不加深究地接受。但是，如果我们摒弃这些异想天开的理论，将女性作为一个完整的人，让她成为自己而不只是男性的一部分的话，那么我们就要问：她是否有理性？如果女性具有理性——我认为这是一定的——那么她被创造出来，就不会只是为了成为男人的安慰品，人性也不会因为女性的存在而被破坏。

男性之所以陷入这种谬误，或许是因为他们在以错误的眼光看待教育：他们没有将教育作为引导一个人逐渐臻于完美的第一步，而仅仅认为它是在为人们日后的生活进行准备。在这一错误论断（我认为这是一种感觉论的错误）的基础上，人们建立起了一套错误的女性行为规范体系，它剥夺了全体女性的尊严，将她们无论美丑都一概视作扮美人间的花朵。这就是男性一直以来所持有的论调，而女性则惧怕被人指责说缺乏这种假定她们应当具有的性别特质，甚至是见识过人的女性也接受了这样的说法。严格说来，这造成了一个结果：女性被认为不能够拥有理性，而她们天生的直觉，也因为生活所迫，逐渐演化为机巧和狡诈。

一个不朽的灵魂所应获取的、唯一能真正称得上是“知识”的东西，就是归纳思想的能力，也就是从对个别情况的观察中得出全面结论的能力。对事物只做观察而不试图探究原因，也许能（以一种极不完备的方式）为人们贡献一些生活常识，但当肉体消逝，我们还能凭借什么去显示灵魂的存在呢？

那些作家不只否认女性具有这种能力，而且还坚持认为，除了少数例外，这种能力有违女性的性别特质。要是他们真能证实这一点，我就承认女性是只为男性而存在的。不过，我必须先指出，这种归纳思想的能力，在相当广泛的层面上，在男性和女性中都不常见。但这种训练能够真正地培育理性，而所有这些现实因素叠加在一起，使得在女性之中培育理性远比在男性之中更为困难。

这些讨论自然地带我来到了本章的主题：我将试图指出一些使女性堕落，并阻碍她们自己对观察结果进行归纳总结的原因。

我不必翻阅古老的历史去追寻女性的发展历程。我们只要知道她们一直都是奴隶或者暴君，并且这两种情况都同样会阻碍其理性的发展就足够了。我一直认为，女性的愚行和恶行在很大程度上是由心智的狭隘所造成的。市民政府的法制本身对培育女性的理性设下了几乎难以克服的障碍，可是美德又不可能建立在理性之外的其他基础之上！富人们也面临着同样的障碍和后果。

“需要乃发明之母”。这一谚语也可被用于美德。美德是后天养成的结果，并且必须以牺牲享乐的代价来获得。但是一个人，如果他的心智尚未在困境中变得开阔而坚强，也没有需求驱使他去追寻学识，谁会牺牲已经到手的享乐呢？需要为了生活而奋斗的人们是幸福的，因为这样的奋斗会使他们不至于因懒惰而陷入耗损精力的恶行！但是如果人们生来就活在只消享乐度日的环境里，他们会振奋精神去履行自己生命的职责吗，还是会全然忘我地投入到爱情里？

按照当前的社会风气，女性的人生要务就是享乐。长此以往，这些软弱的人将一事无成。她们从世上第一位女性那里直接继承了天生的缺点——凭借美貌去呼风唤雨。为了维持这个特权，她们放弃了运用理性去取得她们与生俱来的权利，宁愿选择去做个短命的女皇，也不去努力获得来自于平等的、真正的快乐。她们为自己的卑下地位而扬扬自得（这话听起来简直自相矛盾），以女性的身份要求别人的尊敬仰慕。然而经验会教会她们：大多数男性对女性的尊崇，都是专断无礼的，是出于抬高他们自己的目的；他们喜欢女性的软弱，是为了想控制她们，实则却对此非常鄙视。他们时常重复休谟先生的意见，他在比较法国人和雅典人的性格时，曾提到女性说：“我对雅典人说，这个古怪的民族（法国）很特别的一点，就是他们会把你们在农神节时主仆颠倒的闹剧经年累月地当一回正经事一样地进行着，乃至持续终生，而且还要加上一些更为荒诞不经的特点。你们的游戏不过是将生来卑下的人们抬高几天，而在法国，同样卑下的女人们，在消遣中却可能真的永远凌驾于你之上。这个民族竟然会庄重地赞美这些生来低下的人，这些低劣和软弱到不可救药的人。女人，尽管无德，却成了他们的主子和统治者。”

唉！我满怀关切地追问，女性为何要屈尊接受陌生人的这份关注与仰慕呢？这种关注与仰慕，并非出自人性或文明的礼尚往来。为何她们不懂，她们在“美貌盛极”之时被奉若女皇的待遇，其实只是用以迷惑她们的空洞敬仰，只会持续到她们被迫放弃或不再拥有那天生的美貌所赋予的特权之时呢？她们就像被囚禁的笼中之鸟，除了搔首弄姿、装模作样地在栖木上跳来跳去，什么也做不了。诚然，她们无须劳作便衣食无忧，但这是要以健康、自由和美德为代价的。可是世人中哪里能找到这样坚定的意志，足以使一个人放弃这些突如其来的特权呢？又有谁能以冷静理智的尊严去超越偏见，敢于为人类天赋的特权而自豪呢？当传统的力量扼杀了人的情感，并将理性消灭于萌芽之时，这种期望是无从实现的。

女性就这样被男性的欲望捧上了宝座，而且，除非人类能够变得更加理智，否则女性恐怕仍然会为这种毫不费力即可取得的、无可争议的权力，而利用她们自己。她们会微笑，没错，她们会微笑，即使被告知——

“在‘美貌’的统治之下，没有中间道路可寻，

女人要么是女王，要么是奴隶，

崇拜过后即是侮辱。”

但崇拜在先，她们便不会预想到侮辱。

尤其是路易十四，他传播虚伪的风气，冠冕堂皇地让整个国家都陷入了他的圈套：他巧妙地打造出专制的锁链，让大众为了自己的利益而尊重他的位置、支持他的权力。他以无聊的殷勤奉承所有的女性，在他统治期间，女性获得了王侯般的尊荣，这对理性和美德而言是致命的伤害。

国王永远是国王，女人永远是女人。国王的权势、女人的性感，永远是他们之间顺理成章的交换物。我同意女性在与爱人相处时应当如此，她的感情会自然地使她力求以自己的性感激起回应，但这是为了满足她的心而非虚荣。我认为，这并不是轻浮，而是朴实的自然冲动。我所反对的，是那种与真心无关、想要通过性来征服他人的欲望。

这种征服欲也不只局限于女性。切斯特菲尔德勋爵曾说：“我曾竭力去猎取二十个女子的芳心，虽然对她们本身我毫不在乎。”与这样冷酷的流氓（我喜欢用这样有分量的词）比起来，一个在激情驱使之下利用异性毫无戒备的柔情的浪荡子，都像是个圣人。既然女性只被教导过取悦别人，她们当然就总是在找机会去取悦于人。她们简直是奋不顾身地致力于猎取真心，却只是为了在达到目标或胜券在握之时，再抛弃或拒绝它们。

我必须对这个问题追根究底。

我为女性因为受到一点微不足道的殷勤就全体堕落而感到伤心。男性认为这样向女人献殷勤是男子气概，但实际上他们是在通过侮辱别人来维持自己的优越感。向不如自己的人低头并不能让人高人一等。事实上，在我看来这些礼节太滑稽了，以至于每当看见一位男士热切地起身，郑重其事地为女士们拾起手帕或关上门时，我都几乎忍俊不禁，毕竟女士们只要挪上一两步，就可以自己办到这些事。

此刻一个热切的愿望自我心底浮上脑海，纵使人们会因此而大肆嘲笑我，我也无法忍住不将它说出来。我十分恳切地希望看到，除了那些在爱情驱使之下的行为之外，社会上将不复存在其他的性别差异。因为我坚信，这种差异正是那种人们所谓的女性性格特质的弱点所在：它令女性勤于获取个人才艺却疏于培养理智，看重优美雅致却忽视崇高的美德。

无论是什么样的人，都希望凭借某些条件赢得爱与尊敬，而芸芸众生总是会走捷径来实现他们的愿望。财富与美色作为获取尊敬的条件，是最为确定无疑的，当然也就最容易吸引凡夫俗子的庸俗眼光。男性想要从中等阶层跃身于显赫之位，必须要具备才华与品行。大家都知道，这自然会导致中等阶层成为最富有才华与品行的人群。因此，至少是某一个社会阶层的男性，有机会体面地以一种能够使理性生物有所提升的方式来提高自己的社会地位。但是所有的女性，在她们的品格形成以前，都处于和富人相同的境况，因为她们生来（我所说的是文明社会的情形）就享有某种性别特权，而她们既然能无缘无故地享受着这些特权，当然也就几乎没有人会想到要再额外做些什么，以获得少数卓越者的尊重了。

我们何曾听说过，出身寒微的女性敢于因自己出色的才华和崇高的品质来要求尊重的？到哪里找这样的女性呢？“这些人所寻求的一切，不过是被观看，被照料，被施以充满同情、满足和赞许之情的注目”。我的男性读者见此可能会说，这就对了！但是在他们得出任何结论之前，我想提醒一句，这段文字原本并不是在描写女性，而是富人。在亚当·斯密博士所著的《道德情操论》中，我看到了有钱有势者的一般性格，我认为这些都可以非常恰当地被用来描述女性。我请睿智的读者作一番全面的比较，但我必须要先引用一段文字，来支持我所坚持的观点，它也是反对性别特质的最确凿的论据。因为，如果说贵族之中除了战士之外没有出现过任何一种伟大的人物的话，那么这难道不能清楚地表明：是有局限性的处境埋没了他们的才华。女性的处境也具有同样的局限性（如果我可以这么说的话），这两种人形成了类似的性格，他们都被所处的地位和殷勤的礼仪给限制住了。上流社会的淑女们，不会当众遭到反驳，也不被允许进行任何体力活动。如果人们真希望她们能具有什么美德的话，那也只能是诸如忍耐、温顺、随和、柔韧之类消极的品德，它们与任何心智上的蓬勃发展都毫不相容。此外，因为女性大部分时间都待在一起，很少有真正独处的时间，所以她们会更多地受到人们情绪的影响，而不是听从自己内心的感情。而若要使愿望具有热情的力量，若要令想象力能够发展到更广泛的领域、将想象的对象变成最值得向往的东西的话，幽居和沉思都是必不可少的。对于富人来说，道理也是一样的：他们没有足够的能力自冷静的思考研究中提炼到基本的规律，无法从中建立坚强的性格、树立伟大的理想。来听听一位敏锐的观察家是怎么说这些大人物的吧：

“那些大人物对于自己是以多么低廉的代价赢得了公众的钦羡是否毫无所知呢？或者他们是否想到过，这种钦羡对他们，应该像对别人一样，是必须以血汗来换取的呢？年轻的贵族由于祖先的美德而得以高踞于众人之上，他们知道应该以什么样的重大成就来维护他的阶层的尊严、让自己成为配得上那个超拔于大众之上的地位的人吗？他知道他应该具备学识、勤劳、宽容、克己，以及其他的美德吗？他的一言一行都会被人注目，所以他养成了注意自己日常行为细节的习惯，并且学会了按照最严格的礼节来履行所有的琐屑职责。他意识到自己是多么的引人注目，又有多少人在等着赞同他的一切意愿，所以即使在最无足轻重的场合，他的举止也带着由这种意识中所自然产生出来的洒脱风度和高贵仪态。他的风度、举止、仪态无不显示出他那高人一等的地位所带来的高雅优越，生来地位低下的人对此望尘莫及。他靠着这些手段让人更轻易地服从他的权势，随心所欲地支配着人们的意志，在这方面，他很少会失手。在一般情况下，有这些善用地位权势的手段就足以统治世界。路易十四在其统治期间的大部分时候，不仅在法国，而且在整个欧洲都被看成是一个伟大君主的完美典范。但是他有什么天才和美德能配得上这等盛誉呢？他在任何时候都能一丝不苟和坚持正义吗？他为此而遭遇到巨大的危险和困难吗？或者他会为此孜孜不倦、不屈不挠吗？他是有广博的知识、敏锐的判断力，还是超人的胆识呢？他根本没有任何这些品质。但是，首先，他是欧洲最有权势的君主，因而在诸王中占据着最高的地位。其次，据其史官所说：‘他雍容华贵的仪态，威严俊美的容貌，胜过他所有的廷臣。他的嗓音高贵动人，深得人心，每一次出场都令人肃然起敬。他的步态和举止非常独特，只和他及他的地位相称，放在任何其他人身上都会显得滑稽可笑。他令与他谈话的人局促不安，他为此暗自得意，更觉自己高人一等。’无疑他也具备某种程度的才华与美德，但似乎并不比常人高明多少。他就靠着这微不足道的美德，以及一些无足轻重的成就，当然主要还是他的地位，成为了那个时代里受到敬仰的君王，甚至在后世也广受尊重。在他的时代，在他的面前，同之前说到的这些手段相比，其他一切美德似乎都无足轻重。学识、勤勉、胆略和仁慈在它们面前全无立足之地，彻底丧失了尊严。”

女性，也以类似的方式“成就了她自己”，通过所有这些微不足道的手段，改变了事物的本质：

——“她的所言所行都是最聪明、

最正当、最好、最深思熟虑的。

一切高等的知识，在她面前

都要降格，‘智慧’对她谈话

也茫然若失，看来像傻子。

权威和理性像是一开始

就是特别造来侍候她的。”

所有这些都建立在她可爱的魅力之上！

让我们继续进行比较：在中等阶层的生活中，男性在青年时代就为开始职业生涯做好了准备，婚姻在他们的生活中并不是什么了不起的事情。对于女性，情形却正好相反，她们没有什么砥砺才华的计划。占据她们注意力的，不是事业、伟大的计划或任何远大的抱负。不，她们的思虑没有放在规划这些高贵的人生图景之上。若想进入更高的社会阶层，并且任意地自由享乐，她们就必须缔结一桩有益的婚姻。她们把大好年华都抛掷在这上面，她们的婚姻往往只是在合法地出卖自己的身体。男性一旦开始了职业生涯，就会持续地关注自己未来的发展（因为全神贯注于一点，他们的心智也更为坚强有力），把全部精力都用在了工作上，只把享乐看成是工作之余的放松。而女性，却把追求享乐当成生活的主要目的。事实上，由于她们在社会上所接受的教育，对享乐的爱好可以说是支配了全体女性，但这是否能证明灵魂有性别之分呢？如果真是这样的话，那么那些由法国毁灭性的专制体制所造就出来的宫廷弄臣们，就都不能算是男人了，因为他们都为了虚荣享乐而放弃了自由、美德与人性。这是一种控制了全体人类的、致命的欲望啊！

总体而言，女性教育的全部旨趣就在于培养她们对享乐的爱好，这令女性在大部分时候都纠结在琐碎的小事上。例如，她们总是关注一些次要的事情，也常为新鲜事物眼花缭乱，而忽视了自己应尽的责任。

男性在开始一段旅途时，一般会直奔终点，而女性却更多地关注途中的各种偶然际遇：她想着旅途中可能发生的新鲜事，还有她可能给旅伴留下的印象，而最重要的还是她的穿着打扮。当她要出席一个新场合，或者用法国人的妙语来说，是当她要“一鸣惊人”之时，衣着甚至成为了她整个人最重要的一部分。只关心这种琐碎事务的人，能有什么精神上的尊严吗？

简言之，女性与富人从总体上来看，沾染了文明社会的一切愚蠢及恶劣的行为，却没有得到文明的有益成果。我无须时时表明，我所指的是女性的总体状况，一些例外情况并不在讨论范围之内。一般的女性，她们的情感易被激发，智力却遭到了忽视，于是她们成为感官的俘虏（人们将之美称为“善感”），每一阵感情的波动都能让她们无法自持。文明社会的女性因为矫揉造作的教养变得如此软弱，她们的道德水准要远远低于她们在自然状态下本应达到的水平。她们永远都心神不定，坐立不安，她们过分发展的感性不仅使她们自己不舒服，而且也让别人——说得轻一点——觉得麻烦。她们的心思全部都集中在那些容易激发情感的事情上，在应当理智的时候也感情用事，所以她们的行为不坚定，她们的想法左右摇摆，这种摇摆既不是出于深思熟虑也不是因为她们在以发展的眼光看待问题，而是由于她们心中的感情在彼此冲突。她们时不时地会对许多事情产生热情，然而这种热情绝不会发展成坚持不懈的力量，很快就会冷却下来。它要么自行耗尽，要么就又遇到什么其他在理性看来毫无意义的一时冲动，她于是踌躇不定、无法抉择。这是多么的不幸啊——一个人的心灵被培养得只会煽动激情！我们应当明确，激起感情和令感情坚强持久之间是有区别的。这样一个放纵情感却无判断力的人，能得到什么好结果呢？毫无疑问，只能是疯狂和愚蠢的混合物！

这种观点并不仅仅适用于女性，不过在这里，我只将它用在女性身上。

小说、音乐、诗歌和男性的殷勤，都会使女性成为感性的生物。于是她们在学习个人才艺的同时，就会养成敏感的性格，而才艺却是社会唯一鼓励她们争取达成的进步。这种过分发展的敏感，自然削弱了心灵的其他力量，使智力不能取得其应有的统治地位。而一个理性的人，如果想要自安其位并有益于人，就必须让智力引领自己的精神。因为人生的自然规律告诉我们：驯服激情的唯一法门，就是在生命的发展进程中践行理性。

过度享乐也会导致另外一种非常不同的结果，我经常为一段关于精神毁灭的、有力的描写感到震撼：它描绘了灵魂永远饥渴无望地徘徊在腐朽的肉身之旁，仍然企图追寻享乐，却因为已经丧失了感官，而无法再享受任何乐趣。然而，女性已然成为她们感官的奴隶，因为她们就是凭借着自己的多愁善感来获取现在的这种特权的。

道学家们是否仍要假惺惺地坚持，就是应该鼓励占人类半数的女性继续对她们的处境保持无动于衷和逆来顺受呢？仁慈的导师们啊！我们被创造出来是为了什么呢？他们也许会说，是为了保持天真，这意思其实是保持一种幼稚的状态。要不是男性需要女性来到这世上，以使他们获得高贵的理性特权和辨别善恶的能力，女性根本就不会来到这个世界。她们来自于尘土，如今又安于尘土，永不得翻身。

女性因为流行的偏见，而陷入卑贱、烦恼和忧郁之中，这种种情况真是不可胜数。这种偏见认为，女性生来就是感性的而非理智的，她们若要获得什么权力，也必须得靠她们的妩媚和软弱，即：

“因缺陷而美丽，因软弱而可爱！”

由于这种可爱的软弱，女性除了她们运用那不正当的影响力所获取的东西之外，其他一切都要完全依赖于男性，不仅要受他们的保护，还要听从他们的忠告。她们忽视了只有理性才能指明的责任，畏于经受旨在加强她们心智的考验，却只是绞尽脑汁地为自己的缺点罩上优美的外衣，以便使自己在酒色之徒眼中更具魅力——尽管这些做法令她们德行有亏，可是对于在她们这样处境的人来说这有什么好奇怪的吗？

从任何意义上来讲，她们都很脆弱，不得不仰赖男性取得一切可能的慰藉。哪怕碰到最微不足道的“险情”，她们也会像寄生虫一样紧紧地黏着人，可怜兮兮地要求他们帮助，于是她们天生的护花使者就会伸出手臂，或是提高声音，来保护这可爱的小可怜——可是她们到底遇到了什么危险呢？也许是老牛一声低吼，也许是老鼠窜过眼前。一只老鼠就已经是重大险情了。看在理性甚至是常识的分儿上，这样的人纵使再柔媚动人，又怎能不被轻视呢？

这些胆怯的模样若不是装腔作势，倒也可能相当动人，可这本身就是一定程度的愚蠢低能的表现。女性就这样不知不觉地降低了自己作为一个有理性的人的身份——因为爱慕和尊重是完全不同的两回事。

如果允许女孩子们进行足够的锻炼，而不是被关在不透气的屋子中，直到她们的肌肉变得无力、消化机能也遭到破坏，那么我完全相信我们不会再看到这一类幼稚的景象。进一步说，假使社会不是去培养，甚至是制造女孩子的胆怯，而是像对待男孩子那样斥责她们胆小怯懦的行为，那么我们很快就会看到女性有尊严的模样了。的确，那时她们也许不能再被称为在男性生活之路上微笑的鲜花了，但是她们一定会成为更值得尊重的社会成员，并在自身理性之光的照耀下，承担起人生的重大职责。卢梭说：“像教育男性那样教育女性，她们和我们男性越相似，她们支配我们的权力就越小。”这恰恰就是我的目的：我并不希望她们有权力支配男人，只希望她们有力量支配自己。

我也听到有人用同样的论调反对穷人接受教育，许多反对的声音都建立在贵族的臆想之上。他们说：“教会穷人读书写字，会让他们不再安于本分。”一位能言善辩的法国人曾经对此进行了反驳，我要借用他的意见：但是他们不知道，当他们让人成为兽类时，就要随时准备看到人变成凶残的恶兽。人没有知识，就不会有道德。

把无知作为美德的基础实在是太脆弱了！然而，一些最热衷于主张男性优越论的作家们却一贯坚持认为，无知恰是女性之所以为女性的必要条件。男性比女性的优越，不在于程度高下，而在于两性的本质不同。然而，为了柔化自己的观点，他们又拿出骑士那种彬彬有礼的劲头儿，努力地证明，男女两性是不应被拿来比较的，男性为理性而生，女性则为感性而生，他们在一起，就是灵与肉、理性与感性美好地交融在一起，从而成为一个最完美的整体。

那么感性究竟是什么？“感觉敏锐；知觉敏锐；高度敏感。”这是约翰逊博士给出的定义。这个定义告诉我，感性只不过是精心打磨过的直觉。无论是从感觉上来讲，还是推究它的实质，我都看不到其中有一丝“神的形象”。即使再精制七十个七次，感性仍然是官能性的，它不是理性的居所，就像火永远不能把铅炼成金子！

再回到我之前的观点上来：如果我们承认女性具有不朽的灵魂，那么作为人生的一项任务，她们必然也具有需要不断发展的理性。如今她们一心想着让眼下的境况更加合意，虽然一切事物都能证明这一时的好处与人生的伟大目标相比不过是冰山之一角，可她们还是为了这一点点好处而忘记了后者。这是违背自然的，除非她们生来只是为了生育后代，然后便腐朽死去。要不然，我们就要承认各种兽类也具有灵魂（虽然是不具备理性的），此生它们运用直觉和感性，正是向来生获得理性迈出的第一步。因此，它们将永远地落后于男性，因为他们从一开始便被赋予了获得理性的能力，虽然我们不知道这是为什么。

当我像讨论一个公民或父亲的特殊职责那样来讨论女性的特殊职责时，我并没有暗示说她们中的大多数应该脱离家庭生活。培根勋爵说：“男人有了妻子儿女，就像是有人质在命运之手，因为妻儿是伟大事业的阻碍，无论这事业是高尚的还是有害的。毫无疑问，最美好的事物和对社会最伟大的贡献，都是由独身或没有子女的男人创造的。”我认为这对女性也适用。但是，社会的幸福并非建立在伟大人物的努力之上，并且，如果社会能够以更加合理的方式组织起来的话，那么我们对伟大以及崇高美德的依赖还可以更少一些。

管理家庭和教育子女，都非常需要真正意义上的理性——身心都要坚强有力。然而男性作家却通过他们的作品，处心积虑地想要将女性豢养在家中，他们受到低级欲望的驱使（这种欲望在得到满足之后，已经演变成了过分的挑剔），竭力使女性变得身体柔弱、精神狭隘。即使男性真的用这些歪理邪说说服了女性，让她们感到乐于待在家中善尽作为母亲和女主人的职责，但是由于女性这样做并非是出自理性的选择，所以即使它让女性做了正确的事情、尽了她们应尽的职责，我也要对此提出谨慎的反对。进一步来说，经验告诉我们，与女性因为严肃认真地追求智识（虽然很明显大多数人都从来不曾求知若渴）而未能善尽家庭责任的程度比起来，她们因忽略理性而未能善尽家庭职责的程度，是同样的——不，是更严重的。我还要说，理性能够帮助女性善尽所有的责任，而且我必须再次强调，敏感不是理性。

我仍要将女性与富人进行比较，因为既然男性会忽略为人的职责，女性自然也会效仿，两者都不假思索地被同样的潮流裹挟向前。财富和名誉会阻碍男性理智的发展，并且颠倒了先有耕耘后有收获的自然法则。与此相类似，女性也可以毫不费力地享乐，这种享乐消磨了她们的精力。但除非是世袭的财产终于散尽，否则我们怎能期待男性会以美德为荣？而除非他们做到了以美德为荣，否则女性仍将用最直接的方式来统治男性，不管那些无聊的家务，捕捉转瞬即逝的声色之娱。

有位作家说过，“感性就是女人的力量”。男性并不了解这会带来什么后果，却尽其所能地帮助这种力量胜过其他一切。那些持续运用自己的感性的人是多愁善感的，如诗人、画家、作曲家。然而，当女性为了提升感性而牺牲了理性甚至想象力的时候，那些冷静的男人为何又开始抱怨她们善变呢？男性对女性含有欲望意味的关注，对于女性的感性总是特别起作用，她们从很小就开始在训练这种感知能力。做丈夫的不可能既热烈又持久地对妻子投以这样的关注，去激发妻子心中的热烈感情，于是妻子那已经惯于活跃情感的心便会转向新的情人，或者在道德准则与谨慎原则的规范之下悄然枯萎。我的意思是，当心灵真的已经变得如此多愁善感的时候，品位就已经定了型。以我在时髦社交生活中所看到的景象，我能够下结论说，现在的教育方式以及我一直反对的这种两性交往方式，更容易让人变得虚荣而非敏感，而女性卖弄风情也往往是出于虚荣心，而非极度的多愁善感所导致的善变。

还有一个我觉得很有分量的论据，我认为它对每一个善良体贴的人都会有些说服力。那些没受过什么像样教育的女孩们，常常被父母残忍地抛在身后，没有任何生活来源。于是，她们不得不在精神和经济上双重地依赖于自己的兄弟。我们往最好的方面想，假定这些兄弟都是好人，乐于给予同父同母的姐妹与自己相同的权利。这种权利没有保障、依靠他人施舍的境况，虽说是令人蒙羞，但是性情温顺的女孩也许还能过上一段算得上是舒心的日子。可是，一旦这个兄弟结了婚——这是很可能发生的情况——她将不再被当成家庭的女主人，反而成为了令人讨厌的入侵者，一个依赖男主人和他的新伴侣的善心过活的、不必要的负担。

谁能说得清许许多多这样不幸生灵的悲惨呢？她们的身心同样孱弱，既无力工作，又无颜乞讨，受尽了折磨。而那位冷漠又狭隘的妻子（这样的假设并非失实，因为现行的教育方式既不会发展女性的理性，也不会开阔她们的心灵），对丈夫给予自己亲人这一点善意也感到嫉妒。她的感性并没有升华到合乎人性的程度，所以很不乐意看到她的子女的财产被浪费在无助的小姑身上。

类似的情况一再在我眼前发生。结果显而易见：妻子不敢公然反对，便用狡诈的手段暗中破坏手足亲情。她不惜泪水和抚爱，直到这个对如何应付困境毫无准备的“奸细”被赶出她的家门，抛到外面的世界里去。有时她会出于礼节性的考虑，或是想要彰显自己的慷慨大方，而给小姑安排一笔津贴，那个女孩就带着这笔钱和未经磨炼的心智开始了郁郁的独居生活。

这两类女性，在理性和人性方面的表现可能半斤八两。易地而处，她们还是会做出同样自私的行为。但是如果她们受到的是另一种不同的教育，情况可能会完全不同。妻子不会再有那种要以自己为中心的感觉，理性会教导她不要期望丈夫为了宠爱她而轻忽了重要的责任，更不要为之自得。她爱自己的丈夫，不只是因为他爱她，而是因为他的美德。而那位姐妹也会有能力自己去奋斗，不必再食嗟来之食。

我确信教养和身体官能的加强（后者的作用可能表现得不很明显），可以让人的心灵和理性都变得开阔。我现在说的不是心血来潮的情绪，而是真挚的情感。也许对于两性而言，教育中最困难的一点，就是提供这样一种指导：它不会限制理性的发展，也能在青春萌动之时让活力所激起的情感温暖人们的心灵，不会让他们因为将精力都用在了研究与生活无关的问题上而使情感冷淡干涸。

说到女性，她们接受了精心的教育，要么成为淑女，多愁善感、时常有离奇幻想；要么就不过是个善于持家的主妇。后者往往是友好、诚实的人，有着精明的见识和世俗意义上的谨慎，这使她们比多愁善感的淑女们更有益于社会，虽然她们没有崇高的精神，也缺乏品位。知识世界的大门对她们紧闭着，一旦离开了家庭和熟悉的生活环境，她们就会无所适从。她们的精神无所寄托，文学作品之中虽然有丰富的趣味，但是她们从来没有想到过要去欣赏，反而时常对其表示鄙夷。在她们看来，更有教养的人们的情操和品位都十分滑稽，即使是那些她们因缘巧合或因亲缘关系而爱着的人们，也不例外。如果是泛泛之交，她们干脆就觉得人家是在装腔作势。

一位明智的男士若是爱上了这样的女性，那只能因为她是女性；若尊敬她，只能因为她是个可靠的仆人。他让她责骂仆从，穿着料子最好的衣服去教堂，不过是想图个清静。一个与她智力相当的男人，可能就不会这样迁就她，因为他也许想亲自管理一些家务，这就侵犯了她的特权。总之，这些女性没有通过教育来开阔自己的心胸，也没有通过思考来克服天生的自私情怀，她们非常不适合管理家务。如果手握过多权力，她们就会采取专制的方式来进行管理，来维持她们那种只能建立在财富基础之上的优越地位。她们的恶行有时更为严重，仆人们没有丝毫自由，被迫超负荷地工作，只是为了能让她布置出更气派的宴席，或者是在服饰和排场上把她的邻居们都比下去。如果她负责照顾子女，她通常会极尽奢华地打扮他们，这无论是出于虚荣还是溺爱，都同样有害。

此外，有多少这样的女性郁郁终日——至少是在夜晚。丈夫承认她们是好管家和忠贞的妻子，却仍然离家去寻求更能令他们愉悦的——或者，请允许我用一个意味深长的法语词——更刺激的（piquant）社交生活。而这容让的苦人儿，就像磨房里的瞎马，完成了她的工作，应得的报酬却落了空——她应得的报酬，就是丈夫的关怀。可这些女性自身所有的资本是那么的少，不能不逆来顺受地容忍着被人剥夺了她们自然的权利。

与此相反，一位淑女会被教导要轻蔑地看待日常生活中的琐事，可是她也只学到了一些在程度上略胜于基本常识的才艺而已。这是因为，除非她的智力能够通过锻炼得到加强，否则即使是体力方面的才艺，她也难以达到任何精妙的程度。没有道德原则作为基础，品位难免流于肤浅，优雅也不是单凭模仿就能学到的东西。可是在学习才艺的过程中，她们的幻想却被激发出来，她们的感情即使没有沦于世故也会变得过于苛刻。要不然就是她们的心灵已然太过敏感，却仍旧蒙昧未开，所以无法做出恰当的决断。

这些女性通常是可亲可爱的。相较于那些粗疏不文、劳苦的家庭主妇，她们的心灵的确能感受到更为广泛的仁善，也对文明社会生活中的各种情绪更为敏感。但是，由于缺乏应有的深思和自制，她们只能唤起男性的爱情。当她们能够把握丈夫的欢心时，就会表现得好像是丈夫的情人。她们也会和丈夫的男性友人保持着精神层面的情谊。这些人真是造化的美妙过失。她们被创造出来，似乎不是为了得到男性的友谊，而是要通过磨平男性个性的棱角，并且用玩笑一般的调情使他们亲近女人的欲念不致有失体统，来拯救男性使他们免于堕入彻底的兽性。全人类的伟大的创造者啊！您创造出女人这种生物，她能从您的造物中探查到您的智慧，她能从属于您的万物中感受到您独一无二的艺术，您的高高在上——您带她来到世间，难道没有更高尚的意图吗？难道她能相信她被创造出来只不过是为了服从和她同等的一个生灵——像她一样被送来这个世界上学习美德的男人？她的灵魂明明有能力向您的身边飞升而去，难道她能同意仅仅被用来取悦男人和装点这个世界吗？当她应该同男性一起攀登知识的险峰时，难道她能懒洋洋地歇在那儿，完全指望着他们的理性？

如果爱情就是至上的美德，那就仅仅教育女性如何去唤起爱情好了，让她们发挥所有魅力去魅惑人们的感官吧。但是，如果她们是有道德的生物，那就给她们一个机会去成为有才智的人吧，让她们对男性的爱情，成为大爱的熊熊火焰中的一朵，普济众生，而后再升华为对上帝的感恩崇拜。

履行家庭责任需要很大的决心，以及一种真正的毅力。这种毅力需要比感情更坚实的基础，无论那感情有多么活跃和真挚。要成为一个秩序井然的榜样，需要一个富有美德的人严格地克己自律。一个自幼就被自己的感觉所左右的人，很难做到这一点。任何在理智上想要有所作为的人，都必须有一套行动的计划。即使是在承担最简单职责的时候，我们也常常不得不违背一时的心软或同情。严厉往往是对感情最可靠和最崇高的证明。这种控制感情的力量以及高尚尊贵的爱，会让一个人意识到所爱之人未来的幸福要比当前的满足重要，而这也正是人们所缺乏的，所以才有那么多溺爱子女的母亲宠坏了自己的孩子。这种情况向我们提出了一个问题：忽视和纵容，哪个更加有害？我倾向于认为是后者。

人们似乎都认为童年时期的孩子应该由母亲来管教。可是从我能观察到的一切情形来看，敏感的女性恰恰是最不适合完成这个任务的人选，因为她们必然会受到情绪的控制，宠坏了孩子的性情。对性格的培养是教育中最初也是最重要的部分，要求施教者有清醒坚定的理性。教育计划则既不能专制也不能纵容，而感性的人却恰恰最容易落入这两个极端，总是无法做到恰如其分。我还沿着这一推理更进一步得到结论，一个才华卓著之人是最不适合从事教育工作的，无论是公共教育还是家庭教育。这一类罕见的人看待事物的眼光过于宽广，他们中即使有好脾气的人，也是极少的。有些人总是快快活活，这就是我们所说的老好人，他们通常既没有伟大的智能，也缺乏强烈的感情。而那些满怀兴味和钦佩，去追随天才轨迹的人，或是以比较冷静的赞许之情，汲取深刻的思想家为人们精心准备的教导的人——他们若发觉了天才的暴躁，或是思想家的沉闷，是不应感到厌恶的，因为活跃的想象力和坚韧的理解力，与柔顺的彬彬有礼难以相容——这种彬彬有礼至少会使得一个人更容易屈服于他人的观点和偏见，而不是直率地与之相对抗。

但是，当我们讨论教育或者礼仪规范的问题时，可以不去考虑智力超群的人，就让他们顺其自然地发展吧。需要获得教导、容易受到周遭环境影响的，是能力平平的大多数人。对于这数量可观的大众，我认为，无论男女，都不该以牺牲他们的理性为代价，放任他们的感官在奢侈懒散的温床上滋长。这是因为，除非有理性作为基石，否则人们永远不可能具备美德或者享受自由：一个拥有财富或者某些优秀才能的上等人，永远会凌驾于那些时而怯懦，时而残暴的、情绪的奴隶之上。

有人从另一方面来看待这个问题，也提出了无数看似有理的论点，他们假定男性是根据自然法则，才在身心两个方面都贬低女性的。我必须要评介几则这一类的论点。

人们在谈论女性的理性的时候时常语带轻蔑，因为女性的理性成熟得比男性早。在回应这个论点时，我不打算提及考利、弥尔顿、蒲柏等人早熟的理性和天才作为证据，我只想通过经验来判断一下那些早早步入社会的年轻男性（这样的例子现在很常见）是否就不会像女性一样地早熟。这样的情形已经如此地深入人心，以至于只要提上一提，所有出入社交界的人们眼前自然就会浮现出这样的画面：一群大摇大摆的小男人，在本应转陀螺、滚铁环的年纪就被送入了社会，他们的理性都因此而变得狭隘。

某些博物学家宣称，男性直到三十岁才算完全长成了，而女性则在二十岁以前就成熟了。我认为他们立论的基础有误，他们被男性的偏见引入了歧途，认为美就是一个女子达到成熟的标志，而在世俗的观念里，女性的美仅仅指其容貌、形体之美，可男性的美却可以与心灵才智相关。说到体力以及面貌特征——也就是法国人所谓的“面相”（physionomie），女性和男性一样，在三十岁之前都尚未发育完全。孩子们稚拙的小花招确实是格外令人愉悦的。然而，一旦青春的鲜活可爱退去，这种稚拙的举止就成了故意的装腔作势，会使任何一个有鉴别力的人感到厌恶。在小女孩脸上我们所看到的不过是活泼愉快和羞怯腼腆，但是过了青春期，我们就期望能够在她们脸上看到清醒的稳重，此时激情的迹象也已取代了质朴的笑靥。我们期望看到她们的独特个性，这才是爱情唯一的纽带。我们希望能同她们相互交谈，而不是亲昵地爱抚她们；希望她们能够带给我们想象的空间和心灵的悸动。

二十岁的时候，男女两性的美不相上下，但是男性出于自己的放荡思想，而对它们做出了区分。迟暮的美人也往往持有与他们相同的观点，她们一旦无法再唤起别人的爱情，就会将精力都用在追求青春的生机活力上。法国人对美的观念中包含了更多精神因素，他们认为三十岁的女性是最完美的。我的意思是，他们认为当活泼被理性和严肃认真的性格所代替的时候，女性才真正达到了成熟、不再生长发育，那时她们才达到了最美的状态。二十岁以前的青少年时期，人的身体还在发育；到三十岁的时候身体渐渐结实起来，柔软的肌肉也一天天变得坚硬，使面容具备了自己的特征。这些都像是命运的铁笔，记录了人们心灵的活动，不仅告诉我们人的身躯中蕴含着怎样的力量，也告诉我们它们是如何被运用的。

我们还应该注意一点，那就是成熟得晚的动物，都是最长寿，也最名贵的品种。但是男性在特别长寿这方面，不能说具有任何天生的优越性，因为大自然在这方面并未让男性有什么特别之处。

多妻制是女性地位不彰的另一种表现。这种习俗毁灭了一切家庭美德，却有一种似是而非的论点想要通过一个已经过证实的事实来为它进行辩护，那就是：在建立了多妻制的国家里，出生的女婴要比男婴多。这看起来是自然现象，而面对自然就连理性的思考也必须屈服。显然，进一步的结论就是：如果多妻制是必然，那么女性一定比男性低等，而且是为他们而生的。

我们对于胎儿在子宫中的发育过程所知甚少，但在我看来，这种现象可能只是由偶然的生理原因所导致的，可以证明它并非是自然的法则。我刚好在福斯特所著的《南海诸岛游记》中看到过一些相关的观察记录，可以佐证我的观点。他观察了雌雄两性的动物，发现体质最强健、情绪最旺盛的那个性别往往占优势，并生产出更多的同性后代。他补充道：“如果将这一规律应用在非洲居民上，很显然那里的男性习惯了多妻制的习俗，由于与太多女人纵欲而变得衰弱，所以他们的精力不那么充沛；而女性则正好相反，她们的精力比较旺盛，这不仅是因为她们有更为敏感的神经和身体组织，以及更为活跃的想象力，也同样是因为她们在婚姻生活中被剥夺了在一夫一妻制下独属一人的那份肉体之爱。由于以上原因，令大部分新生儿为女性。”

“在欧洲的大部分地区，最精确的死亡率统计表证明，男性与女性的比例几乎相等，如果说有所差别的话，也是男性新生儿多于女性新生儿，两者比例为105比100。”

由此可见，多妻制是没有必要的。然而，如果一个男人诱奸了一个女人——我想这该是所谓的“左手婚姻”——那么这个男人应该在法律上承担起责任，赡养她和她的孩子们，除非这两人是通奸，这种行为是自然的离异，法律不应予以保护。只要女性的软弱仍然使“诱奸”一词被用作她们的脆弱和缺乏原则的借口，这条法律就应当一直有效。不仅如此，只要女性仍然无法运用自己的双手和头脑生活，而需要依靠男性维生，这条法律也应该一直有效。可是在这样的关系当中，女性不应被称为是完整意义上的妻子，否则就破坏了婚姻真正的意义：因为两人之间若不是靠着爱情或友谊而使心灵结合在一起，那么婚姻之中所有出自于个人忠诚的、使双方关系变得神圣的亲密情感，都将沦落为自私自利的行为。虽然我发自内心地认为，男性与女性有必要为了抚养后代而共同生活，但自然之意绝对不会是一名男子可以有多位妻子。而且，这些女性如果能够忠于自己孩子们的父亲，就应当受到尊敬，不应被视为妓女。

尽管我非常尊重婚姻，将它视为几乎一切社会美德的基础，但我无法不对那些因“破坏婚姻”而被社会抛弃的不幸女性感到最深切的同情，她们只因一次过错就被剥夺了所有有益于心灵的情感和人际关系。在许多时候她们甚至不能说是做错了事。许多无辜的女孩只是付出真心的傻瓜，而更多的女孩，我想强调的是，她们是在还不懂得区别善恶的时候就“被毁了”：她们只受过恶劣的教育，并因此而成为了声名狼藉之人。救济院或妓女收容所不是补救这种弊害的正确方法。这个世界缺少的不是慈善，而是公正！

一个女人一旦丧失名誉，可以想见她会悲惨到无以复加，至于恢复她从前的地位，那是绝没有可能的，任何努力都无法洗去这个污点。再无人来鼓励她，她也没有任何其他方法可以谋生，卖淫成了她唯一的出路。这个悲惨的人无力对抗环境的影响，她的品格会迅速地堕落，除非她心高气傲并且具有非同寻常的理性。男性从来不曾因为生活所迫，而以卖淫为业，可被迫一步步走上这条罪恶之路的女性却数不胜数。这在很大程度上是由女性被教育出来的懒惰所造成的，女性总是被教导说要依赖男性生存，并且以她们的身体回报男性对她们的赡养。于是，娼妓般的做派和那一整套淫荡的学问成了比食欲和虚荣更加有力的刺激，而这一点又助长了流行的观念，那就是，贞操是女性唯一值得尊敬的东西。女性的品行就取决于是否遵守了这唯一的一种美德，而她们心中却只培养着一种激情——那就是爱情。不仅如此，女性的名誉甚至根本不能由她自己的意志来决定。

理查德森一定是对名誉和美德有着奇怪的观念，才会让克拉丽莎告诉拉夫雷斯，他夺走了她的名誉。因为，一切悲惨中最悲惨的莫过于此：一个人不经自己的同意就被认为是堕落的！我曾听说有人为这种过分严酷的行为辩护，说它是一种有益的错误。我要用莱布尼茨的话回敬：“错误往往是有益的，但是这通常是为了补救其他错误。”

生活中有太多的不幸，都来自于对一时享乐的过分欲求。要求女性在婚后顺从，就属于这种情况：一个顺从的妻子，因为依赖权威，她的头脑自然会变得软弱，她不再使用自己的力量，变成了一个软弱懒惰的母亲。或者，假设结果并不总是这样，但仅仅培养女性消极的美德，这就几乎没有考虑到她们未来的生存状况。因为在对待道德，尤其是女性的道德问题时，作家们总是在一个非常有限的意义上考虑“美德”这个词，只将它建立在单一的、世俗功利的基础之上。更有甚者，他们还以男性自私而多变的感觉作为美德的标准，将他们那伟大的论说逻辑建立在了一个更为脆弱的基础之上。是啊，美德，正如宗教，已经要由个人的口味来决定了。

若非男人以自负的荒唐到处攻击我们，那么看到他们是多么急切地贬低女性，却又号称正是从女性身上得到了人生的主要乐趣，就几乎能让我轻蔑地笑出来了。我时常满怀信心地用蒲伯的讽刺来反击男人，或者确切地说，在我看来这段妙语适用于整个人类：看起来，用热爱享乐或热爱统治就可以划分人类了，做丈夫的在自己的家里说一不二，他只想到自己的享乐或便利。长此以往，那些已经结婚的男子们——无论是谨慎男子，还是想要找个可靠伴侣的回头浪子——都必然会在过分迷恋享乐的驱使之下，引诱自己的妻子走向堕落。海门赶走了羞怯，纯真之爱也随风而逝。

爱情作为一种肉体的欲望，不可能只靠着它本身就一直存在下去。爱情火焰的熄灭，通常是突如其来地就发生了。可是因爱欲而变得放荡的妻子，却要设法在丈夫的殷勤消逝后填补它所留下的空虚，因为在一度被当作女神一样地对待以后，她已经无法再满足于仅仅做一个高等的女仆。她仍旧青春貌美，不愿将热情转移到子女身上，只想享受生命的欢愉。而且，有很多丈夫是如此的缺乏常识与父爱，以至于在当初爱欲沸腾之时，他们不允许妻子亲自哺育子女。妻子们只管盛装打扮，为取悦丈夫而活。而爱情，若因纵欲而忽略了履行责任，即使是纯真的爱情，也很快就会沦为淫乱。

身体上的亲密固然是令人愉悦的夫妻情谊的基础，然而，当两个善良正直的年轻人结了婚，如果有一些境况使他们的激情经受考验，那可能是件好事。如果他们能够回想起在此之前所拥有的亲密关系，或已逝的恋情的话，那么他们至少能在某一方面使他们的婚姻得以建立在尊重的基础之上。这样一来，他们的眼光就会更长远，并试着规划一段恒久的关系，维持一段至死不渝的友谊，这会令他们的整个人生都值得尊敬。

友谊是一种庄严的情感，它是一切情感之中最为崇高的一种，因为它建立在原则之上，并且随着时间的流逝而日渐坚实。而爱情可以说恰恰与之相反。在很大程度上，爱情和友谊无法同时存在于一个人的心中，如果这两种感情是由不同的对象激起，那么它们彼此之间就会互相削弱和破坏，而对同一个对象，爱情和友谊只能先后存在。对空虚的恐惧和因爱欲而生的嫉妒，这两者相互交融，为爱情煽风点火，而它们都与友谊的悉心信任、真诚敬重绝不相容。

爱情，就像才子们的生花之笔所描绘的那种爱情，在世上根本就不存在，或者说仅仅存在于勾勒出此等危险图画的那些热烈狂想之中。这种对爱情的描述是危险的，因为它不仅为那些以多情的名义来掩饰其赤裸肉欲的好色之徒提供了一个好听的借口，而且还传播了虚伪做作的风气，败坏了道德的尊严。美德，就像这个词本身所含的意义，即使不意味着苦行，也应当具备相当的严肃性，而人们却将这个词语等同于“美丽”的别名，企图将它塞进“享乐”的外衣里，这无异于是想在流沙之上抬高它的地位。这是以表面的尊重来促使美德堕落的最阴险的企图。事实上，在现实生活中，美德和享乐并不像一些善辩的作家所力图证明的那样紧密相连。享乐为我们备下了行将凋谢的花环，调制了令人沉醉的美酒，然而美德所给予的果实，则是辛勤劳动的报酬。我们眼看着它日渐成熟，只感受到平静的满足，而且，它看起来只是事物自然发展的结果，几乎难以觉察。面包是常见的食物，支撑着我们的身体，维持着我们的健康，却极少被当作是天赐之福；盛宴上的精致菜肴，令人欢欣愉悦、大饱口福，即使其中潜藏着疾病甚至死亡的威胁，人们也仍然喜爱宴饮。活跃狂热的幻想，正是以这样的方式描绘出了爱情的图画，就像它大胆地幻想着自彩虹上窃取闪闪发光的色彩，去描绘出其他一切图画那样。它渴望通过一种这个世界所不能达成的尽善尽美，来证明爱情的高贵的起源，永远地追寻着它自己也承认是梦幻泡影的东西。这种强烈的幻想可以使虚幻的东西变得实在，让朦胧的遐思变得坚定，它们本是头脑面对乏味的现实所自然产生的结果。这幻想将爱情描画得有如天国般美妙，并沉迷于这个伟大完美的幻想对象之中。它能幻想出一种可以净化灵魂且永恒不灭的彼此爱慕，因为它是“天国的标杆”，而且，就像是对宗教的虔敬一般，它能够净化一切卑下的情感与欲望。爱人在彼此的臂弯里，就像在高耸入云的神庙之内，与世隔绝，也隔绝了一切不能培育纯洁爱情和永恒美德的思想与愿望。永恒的美德！唉，卢梭，您这可敬的空想家！您的天堂乐土很快就要被一些不速之客的闯入给玷污了。就像弥尔顿的乐园，它只能容纳天使，或是已经丧失了理性生命之尊严的人。幸福不是一件东西，它看不见也摸不着！然而，每个人都按照自己的想象去热切地追求“幸福”，正是这一行为，宣示了人是尘世的主宰，能成为有灵性的生物——不是被动接受，而是主动地去寻求幸福。因此，那些抱怨激情欺骗了自己的人，忘记了他们所反对的恰恰是灵魂不朽的明证。

不过，让那些出众的头脑去纠正他们自己，为他们的经验付出高昂的代价吧！必须注意的是，我希望通过训练理性来保卫女性的心灵，不是为了反对强烈而持久的激情，而是要反对浪漫而摇摆的情绪，因为这些天堂乐土般的遐想，常常是无所事事的梦幻，而不是活跃的想象力的产物。

女性很少能有足够严肃的工作来平息她们的情绪，她们身心的全部精力，都被消磨在了一连串的琐碎小事和虚荣的追求上，这自然会使她们彻底沦为感官的奴隶。简言之，在我们的社会里，女性教育的全部宗旨，就是使环境最好的女性变得浪漫而无常，使其余的女性变得虚荣而卑鄙。在目前的社会状况下，我恐怕这些弊端难以得到哪怕是最细微的补救。若是一种更值得赞美的理想得以在社会上流行，女性也许能更接近自然和理性，成长为更加值得尊重的人，变得更有道德，也更有能力。

然而我敢断言，当大多数人的首要愿望还是向世人炫耀他们的尊荣的时候，女性的理性将永远不会有足够的力量去改善她们的行为。就为了这个卑劣的愿望，自然的情感和最有益的美德都被牺牲了。女孩子们结婚的目的——借用一句意味深长的俗话——只不过是为了向上爬，而且她们是如此精准地控制着自己的心灵，直到一个家财万贯的男人前来求婚，否则她们绝不会坠入爱河。这个话题我打算在以后的章节中详谈，现在只需稍提一下，年轻女性太常受到成年人自私的精明所害，以至于冷却了青春的热情，变得堕落。

还有另一个同一类型的观点认为，年轻女孩应当把大部分时间用在针线活上，然而，这比其他任何她们能做的事情，都更加限制她们的才能，因为针线活使女孩子的注意力被局限于她们的外表之上。男性请人为他们制作服装，交代完后，就算完事，女性却要自己制作衣服，无论是必需的还是装饰性的，并且不停地谈论它们，她们的脑子也在跟着手转。缝制必要的衣物不会削弱她们的头脑，可是制作花哨的礼服却会令她们思想孱弱。一位处于较低社会阶层的女性为她的丈夫和孩子缝制衣服的时候，是在履行她的职责，这是她工作的一部分，但如果女性是为了能穿上自己负担不起的漂亮衣服而劳作，其害处就不仅仅是浪费时间了。若要使贫苦的女性享有美德，必须让她们能有份工作，而中产阶级的女性，如果不想效颦贵族女性的时尚，去追求她们那样的安逸，正好可以雇用这些贫苦的女性，同时她们可以自己管理家庭、教育子女和锻炼自己的心智。园艺、实验哲学和文学艺术可以成为她们思考和聊天的题目，这会在一定程度上锻炼她们的理性。法国女性不会整天僵坐在椅子上，织衣襟、结缎带，她们的谈话固然常常很肤浅，不过我认为，还远不及英国女性谈话的无聊。而英国女性把时间都花在了做各种男女帽子、装饰品之类的东西上面，更不用说买东西、讨价还价一类的事情了。而恰恰是那些谨慎体面的女性最容易让自己陷入这些事情，因为她们的动机不过是为了满足虚荣。那些会运用品位来使自己更加诱人的放荡女性，她们要考虑的事可就多了。

这些评述都来自一个我之前提到过的、概括性的观点，我对它再如何反复强调也不为过。这是因为，说到男性、女性和职业，我们都会发现，无论是对整体还是个人，思维的运用都会塑造人的性格。女性的思维永远围着她们的外表打转，那么她们把外表当作是最有价值的东西又有什么奇怪？但即使是为了塑造美丽的外表，也需要有一定程度上的心灵自由，这也许就是一些温顺的妻子除了性别本身的吸引力之外，再没什么其他魅力的原因之一。此外，久坐不动的工作使得大部分女性都柔弱多病，而对女性美的错误观念却让她们以这种娇弱为荣，其实这是束缚女性的另一副枷锁，它使得女性不断地关注自己的身体，从而禁锢了她们心智的活动。

上流社会的女性很少亲手缝制衣服，因而在穿着方面只需要运用她们的鉴赏力。于是她们梳妆完毕就不怎么再去想那些服饰了，所以能够有一份安然自得的气度。在那些只为了打扮而打扮的女性中，就难得见到这样的举止。事实上，我之前关于中产阶级最富有才干的言论，并不适用于女性。上流社会的女性，由于至少对文学略知一二，又能更多地与男性讨论一些一般性的问题，能够得到更多知识，胜过那些只是模仿她们的时髦作风和缺陷，却没有分享到她们的优点的其他阶层的女性。而说到美德，从广义上来看，我在下层女性中见得最多。许多贫苦的女性胼手胝足养育儿女，维持着因丈夫的恶行而濒临破碎的家庭；而上流社会的女性却太过懒惰，不会主动培养美德，文明教化与其说能使她们更完善，倒不如说让她们更软弱了。我确实在很多无缘接受教育却表现出高尚美德的贫苦女性身上，看到了理性，这有力地证实了我的观点：是琐碎无聊之事把女性变成了无聊之人。男性占有了女性的身体（兰格尔说：“我占有她的身体。”），却任其头脑锈蚀。所以在肉欲之爱（这其实是他们最喜爱的消遣）让他们感到疲惫的时候，他们会尽力地控制和奴役女性：谁知道还要经过多少世代，这些悲惨的奴隶的后代才能得到自由，拥有生机勃勃的美德和才干呢？

在探索那些在我看来会导致女性堕落的原因时，我只谈论对全体女性道德和行为产生影响的因素，并且我清楚地看到，所有这些问题都源自理性的缺乏。只有时间才能告诉我们，这究竟是自然规律，还是偶然的、能力上的缺陷。我不打算太过强调少数因为接受了男性教育，而具备了勇气与决心的女性的例子。我只想指出，与女性处境类似的男性，养成了和她们类似的性格——我所指的是一般的男性，而那些才华超群的男性都是出自于同一个阶层，在那个阶层根本没有女性的位置。

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

第五章 反驳某些对于女性抱有近乎侮辱的怜悯态度的作家

在当下一些讨论女性品格和教育问题的读物中，时常出现一些看似合理的意见，而大多数涉及女性问题的言论都过于轻率地保持着与它们一致的观点。现在，我们就来考查一下这些意见。

第一节

我将从卢梭开始，用他自己的话来概括他对女性品格的看法，并在其中插入我的评论和回应。我的评论，确实只是出于一些基本的原则，也都可以从我之前的话中推论出来，但是卢梭所构造的那一套理论是如此精妙，以至于我们有必要对之进行更加详尽的批驳，我决定自己来做这件事。

卢梭认为，苏菲堪称完美的女性典范，就像爱弥儿是完美的男性典范一样。为了证明这一点，他必须要检视自然所赋予女性的品格特质。

于是他开始证明，女性应当是柔弱的和被动的，因为她们在体力上不如男性强壮。然后他又推论说，女性生来就是为了取悦男性，并服从于他们。所以，女性的天职就是使自己成为令主人感到称心如意的伴侣——这就是她生活的伟大目标。不过，为了好歹给欲望留点面子，他坚持认为，男性在求欢时不应使用强力，而要凭女性的心甘情愿。

“因此我们根据两性之间身体构造的差异推导出第三种结果，那就是，强壮的男性只是表面上的控制者，实则却依赖着较为软弱的女性。这种依赖并不是指男性献给女性的各种小意殷勤，或者是他们以保护者自居的虚荣心，而是因为无法改变的自然法则让女性长于激发男性的欲望并令其得到满足，男性依赖着女性所给予的欢愉，这欢愉会令他反过来竭力地取悦女性，好让她同意他是最强壮的男子。在这种情况下，为了赢得女性的欢心，男性最乐于做的事情，莫过于去猜测女性是会因其自身的柔弱而折服于他超群的力量，还是她一向欣赏他这样的男子，而女性则会非常有技巧地让他一直猜不到答案。从这个角度来看，女性的理性和她们的体质完美地相配：她们绝不会为了自己的柔弱而感到羞惭，相反，她们觉得这是值得称赞的。她们柔软的肌肉本来就没什么力气，却还会假装连最微不足道的分量也提不起来，要是被人说强壮她们是会脸红的。她们为什么会这样做呢？这不单是为了彰显自己的娇弱，也是她们一个技巧性的预防措施：她们预先为自己找好了一个借口，好在需要的时候有向人示弱的权利。”

我引用了这段文字，以免读者怀疑我故意歪曲作者的推理来支持我自己的观点。我之前已经表达过自己的观点，根据这些基础原则来教育女性，会让她们成为狡猾放荡的人。

假设女性生来就只是为了取悦男性，并服从于他们，那么这个结论就是对的。她应该为了让男性感到称心如意而牺牲其他一切考虑。如果能证明这野兽般的、自我保护的欲望就是她命运的牢笼，她的人格应当不顾一切精神和肉体的差异，伸缩扭曲只为能，我们可以证明，总体来看，即使只是现世的目标，也已经被这种建立在卑劣基础上的、实用性的规则所破坏，那么我就可以怀疑，女性究竟是否是为了男性才被创造出来的。虽然人们会因此而叫嚣，指责我漠视宗教甚至说我是无神论者，但我还是要坦然地宣称：即使有一个天使从天而降，告诉我摩西那优美如诗的创世之说和关于人类堕落的记载，确确实实都是真的，我也无法相信我的理性所告诉我的一切是对上帝的不敬。我不害怕看到魔鬼出现在我面前，我敢于宣称这是理性的启示，而不是将我的弱点归咎于那第一个诱骗软弱女性的魔鬼。

卢梭接着说道：“现在已经证明了，男性和女性在气质及性格上，不是而且也不应当被认为是相同的，这当然就证明了他们不该以同样的方式接受教育。他们的确应当跟从自然的引导共同协作，但是他们不应该做同样的事情：他们最终追寻的目标应当是一致的，不过他们实现目标的手段应该不同，因而他们的趣味和爱好应当是不同的。”（卢梭《爱弥儿》，第三卷，P176）

“无论是通过考察她们的特殊使命、观察她们的兴趣爱好还是评价她们的责任，所有的事情都殊途同归地为我指明了适合于她们的、特殊的教育方法。女性和男性注定彼此依赖，可是他们相互依赖的程度不同。男性依赖女性只是因为他们的欲望，而女性依赖男性则不只是因为她们的欲望，也是因为男性是她们生活中所不可缺少的人，男性没有女性，会比女性没有男性好过一点儿。”

“为此，女性所受的教育应当总是与男性有关。如何取悦我们，如何成为对我们有用的人，如何让我们爱上她们、尊重她们，如何教育男孩子，如何照顾成年男性，给我们建议和抚慰，让我们生活得更舒适愉快。这些是女性终生的责任，也是她们应当从小就开始学习的内容。要是不按照这个原则行事，我们就会远离目标，所有对她们的教导将既无助于她们自己的幸福，也无助于我们男性的幸福。” 

“女孩从小就热爱穿着打扮。她们光是自己漂亮可爱还不够，还渴望别人也认为她们漂亮可爱。我们可以通过她们微微表露出来的神情，看出这种想法占据了她们的注意力。除非我们告诉她们人们对她们言行的看法，以此约束她们，否则她们几乎无法听懂我们在说什么。然而，以同样方式去诱导男孩子却会显得轻率，因为这对他们不会起作用：他们只要被允许去愉快地尽情游戏，就不怎么在乎别人对他们的看法。要让男孩子服从于这种诱导需要花费不少时间精力。

“女孩子无论是从什么地方学到了这第一课，都是好的。肉体的诞生先于灵魂，所以我们首先应当注意的就是培养身体，这个顺序对男女都是共通的，不过两性培养的目标却不一样。男孩应当发展他的体力，女孩则应发展她外表的魅力。并不是说体力或魅力这两种品质只能分别地为某一种性别所独有，但是在培养这两种品质的次序上，男女是相反的。女性当然需要足够的体力好能够优雅地行动，而男性也需要谈吐的技巧好让他们应付自如。”

“男孩和女孩有很多共同的娱乐活动，也应当如此，难道他们长大后不也是这样吗？不过在这一方面，不同性别也有各自独特的偏好。男孩子喜欢喧闹而有活力的游戏，像是打鼓、抽陀螺、拖拉他们的小车；女孩子则更喜爱表演和装饰用的东西，比如镜子、小饰品、玩具娃娃之类，玩具娃娃是女孩子特有的娱乐，由此可见她们的爱好恰恰适合于她们的使命。取悦于人的艺术的外在表现就是穿着打扮，而这也是女孩们在培养取悦于人的技艺上所能够学到的一切。”

“从这些我们可以看到基本的倾向已经稳固地建立起来，你只需要对此因势利导即可。小女孩儿无疑非常渴望知道如何装扮她的娃娃，为它做小袖结、荷叶边、头饰，等等。她必须向周围的人求助，请求他们帮助她做这些小东西，而若能全靠自己的努力做出这些，她就更会感到十分愉快。因此我们通常把这作为教给年轻女孩的第一课是很有道理的：我们不是来给她们布置一项任务，而是帮助她们学会一些马上就会对她们有用的东西。而且，事实上，几乎所有女孩儿都不愿学习、读书、写字，可她们却随时都很乐意投入到针线活儿当中去。她们愉快地想象着自己已经长大，可以用针线上的本领来打扮自己。”

这当然只是对身体的教养。但不止卢梭一个人曾隐晦地表示，年轻女性有外表就足以取悦于人了，她们不需要任何心智，除非动物本能也算是心智。为了让她们的身体变得柔弱，也就是某些人所谓的柔美，人们忽略了她们的理性，女孩儿们被迫静静地坐在那儿玩着娃娃，听着愚蠢的谈话，而这种习惯所产生的结果，却被坚称为是确定无疑的自然表现。我知道，卢梭的观点是青年时代的最初几年应该用来培养身体，虽然他在教育爱弥儿时并没遵从这个计划，然而使身体强健——智力也在很大程度上依赖于体力——和仅仅让身体能从容地行动，是非常不同的。

我们应当注意到，卢梭的言论是在一个这样的国度里产生的，在那里取悦于人的技艺日益精深，目的不过是为了使恶行看起来不那么粗鄙。他没有追溯到问题的本质，也许是他那压倒一切的欲望干扰了理性的运行，否则他不会得出这样草率的结论。

在法国，对小孩子们尤其是女孩的教育，仅仅是教授她们如何取悦于人，教会她们打理外表和注意在人前的行为举止。为了让她们不失礼节，人们早早地就用那些世俗伪善的戒律腐蚀了她们的灵魂。在过去的时代，就连孩子也必须要做深切的忏悔，而忏悔时圣者的提问就足以让她们对性别特质留下印象了（我说的都是有可靠根据的事实）。而社会给她们的教育就是如何卖弄风情和取悦男性。到了十岁或十一岁，不，甚至常常比这还早，女孩子们就开始卖弄风情，她们谈论着如何通过婚姻来建立她们的社会地位，却不会受到任何责备。

简言之，女孩儿几乎从一出生就被当作是成年女性，听到的都是恭维而非教导，这些都削弱了她们的心智。大自然在塑造女性这个事后才被想起的生灵时，就像是在扮演一个后母般的角色。

因为女性不被允许拥有理性，所以她们自然也就不受理性的支配而要盲目地服从于权威，并且为了使她们服从，卢梭还给出了以下建议：

“女孩应该活泼而勤勉，可这还不够，她们还应该尽早学会服从约束。如果这对她们真是一种不幸的话，那也是跟她们的性别密不可分的，如果她们想摆脱这种不幸，就会遭受更残酷的不幸。她们必须终生服从这种恒常的、严格的约束，即礼仪的约束。因此，有必要让她们尽早习惯这种限制，以免今后付出更大的代价，并且要压抑她们的任性，这样她们就能更好地服从他人的意志。如果她们竟然真的会热爱不停地工作，那有时就该强迫她们把工作放在一边。如果她们被过分的纵容给宠坏了而误入歧途，她们的天性中就会很容易产生放荡、轻浮和反复无常等缺点。要避免这些恶习，我们就该让她们学到，最重要的一点就是要对自己有适当的克制。因为我们荒谬的制度，一个端庄的女人往往沦落在永无休止的自我矛盾之中。不过让女性分担一下这制度带给我们的不幸，也没什么不公平的。”

一位端庄的女士，为何她的一生会处在永无休止的矛盾之中？我认为这是我们的教育制度造成的。端庄、节制、克己是理性所带来的、自觉的品质，但是当我们牺牲女性的理性并培育她们的感性之时，这些软弱的人就必然被以专断的方式管束起来，受制于持续不断的矛盾冲突。如果能够为她们的心智活动提供更为广阔的空间，就会有更高尚的激情和动机来支配她们的欲望和情绪。

“一位母亲所给予女儿们的最平常的情感和关怀，就会让她赢得女儿的敬爱，孩子们甚至可能只是因为习惯了母亲的存在就敬爱着她，除非她做了什么引起她们憎恨的事情。即使母亲对女儿们加以约束，只要处理得当，也只会增加而不是减少孩子们对她的爱，这是因为女性天生就处于依赖的状态，她们会发觉自己生来就应当服从他人。”

这是在用未经证实的假定来论证问题，因为奴役不仅贬低了被奴役者的人格，而且它的影响看起来还会代代相传。考虑到女性已经做了那么久的依赖者，她们中会有些人甘于受缚，像叭儿狗一般地摇尾乞怜，也不奇怪吧？一位博物学家发现，“这些狗儿的耳朵最开始都是竖起来的，但是习惯战胜了自然，恐惧造成的垂耳现在成了一种美观。”

卢梭又说：“出于同样的理由，女性只有或者说只应当有极少的自由。即使只允许她们享有这点自由，她们也常常会过度滥用它。她们对一切都过分沉迷，甚至在游戏时会比男孩子更加兴致高昂。”

这个问题非常容易解释。奴隶和暴民一旦挣脱了权威的束缚，也同样会过度放纵自己。当我们突然放开满拉弓弦的手时，弯曲的弓就会猛然弹回，而受外部环境所左右的感性的情绪，要么必须服从于权威，要么就要受制于理性。

卢梭继续写道：“女性习惯了被约束，并且因此而变得顺服。这是因为她们在整个人生中，要么要服从于男性，要么要服从于大众舆论，她们从来不被允许将自己的观点放在他人的意见之前。女性首先应当具备的，也是最重要的品质，就是要有一副好脾气（或者说是性情甜美）。她们生来就要服从于男性，而男性却是如此不完美的生物，时常恶行累累，又总是一身毛病，所以女性就应该尽早学会容忍一切，甚至是那些不公平的境况，并且毫无怨言地忍受丈夫的侮辱，她应当性情温顺，这不是为她丈夫着想，而是为了她自己。而女人的倔强和坏脾气则只会加重她们自己的不幸，以及令她们的丈夫更加举止不端。她们会清楚地发现，坏脾气并不是能帮助她们获得优势的武器。”

女性生来注定要与男性这样不完美的生物生活在一起，她们确实应该发挥自己的才能去学习保持必要的忍耐，但是坚持盲目的服从则是对神圣人权的彻底破坏，除非神圣的人权仅仅属于男性。

一直容忍不公、忍气吞声的人，很快就会变得有失公允或者无力辨别是非。此外，我也不认同那种认为忍耐可以塑造或改善性情的观点。从整个性别的角度来看，男性往往比女性脾气要好，因为他们所投身的事业追求，既有益于他们的头脑又有益于他们的心灵，而坚定的头脑会带给他们健康的性情。感情用事的人难得有好脾气。好的性情是冷静地运用理性的结果，随着年龄的增长，理性用高明的手段调和了各种原本彼此冲突的性格特征。我从来不知道有哪个软弱无知的人是好脾气的，虽然天生的温顺，以及那种因恐惧而产生的顺从的行为举止，往往都被称为是好脾气。我提到了“行为举止”，是因为真正的温和是深思熟虑的结果，否则它无法被内化于心灵，而且那种家庭生活中的简单约束，还会大量地造就具有病态性格的人，许多明智的男性都会承认，他们发现这样温顺而又暴躁的女人实在是非常麻烦的伴侣。

卢梭进一步主张说，“男女两性都应该保持各自独特的格调和举止。一个温顺的丈夫会让妻子变得蛮不讲理，但是性情温顺的女性却总是能让男性恢复理智，只要他不是彻头彻尾的人面兽心之人，那么她迟早可以征服他。”如果这种温顺是出自于理性，那么此言不虚。但是低声下气的恐惧永远只会激起轻蔑，而泪水也只有在从美丽的双颊上滚落时才能有些微弱的力量。

遭受侮辱却依然柔顺，对待不公不但不反抗，反而去亲吻笞杖，这样的心灵是用什么做成的啊？如果一个女人能在男人暴虐地对待她时，仍然以全部的女性柔情去抚爱他，那我们由此推断她的美德只不过建立在狭隘的眼界和自私自利的基础之上，也没什么不公平吧？人的天性不会令她如此虚伪，这种委曲求全的行为被称为是美德，可是当美德中的任何一部分是建立在虚伪之上的时候，它本身就是个模糊不清的概念了。这样的行为只不过是权宜之计，不过是为了将当下的情形应付过去罢了。

做丈夫的人要小心一些，不要毫无保留地相信这种奴隶般的顺服，因为，当他对妻子发火的时候，她本该感到气愤，可是她却仍能以迷人的甜美来抚慰他，这除非是因为她那本应燃起的怒火被耻辱感给压制住了，她可能刚刚离开了她的情人，羞耻感令她能够这样地逆来顺受。这些顺服的举止都是通奸的前兆。这样的一个女人，她的天生的本能和后天习来的技艺都是如何取悦男性，当她无法再取悦自己的丈夫时，难道对世人议论的担心或者是对地狱的恐惧能够压制她取悦其他男性的欲望吗？除了通奸她又能找到什么其他的事情可做呢？有什么能补偿缺乏理性所带给她的损失，她又能到哪里去寻找新的寄托？她的习惯早已定型，虚荣久已控制着她混乱的头脑，她能去哪儿找到足够的意志力去决心开展新的追寻呢？

可是卢梭这位偏狭的道德家却言辞巧妙地、系统地为这一套女性的狡诈技艺进行了辩护。

“女儿们应该永远都是柔顺的，不过做母亲的也不该不近人情。要让一个年轻人温顺听话，就不该让她闷闷不乐；要使她端庄得体，就不该让她呆头呆脑。正相反，当女孩儿们运用一些小手段来摆脱她们必然要服从的管束的时候我不会觉得不高兴，只要这不是为了逃避我们对她们的不服从行为所给予的惩罚就好。没有必要使她感到依赖于他人是一种负担，只要让她觉察到自己的依赖性就好了。诡诈是女人天赋的才能，而我深信我们所有天赋的倾向，其本身都是正确美好的，所以我认为诡诈的才能也该像其他天赋一样得到培养：我们只需防止它被滥用即可。”

他于是继续得意扬扬地断言道：“凡是存在的，就是正当的。”就算是吧。然而，或许没有其他格言会比这句话更加自相矛盾了。对于上帝而言，这句话是严肃的真理。上帝，我虔诚地说，他能够立时看清事物的全貌，甚至只是在其刚刚萌芽之时，但是人类只能察觉到互不关联的局部，所以会对事物形成许多错误的认识，人类折服于造物主的智慧，也对他们努力脱离的蒙昧世界保持着敬畏之心，但是他们仍然会致力于按照自己所看到的片面的情况去改变这个世界——可这就是上帝所创造的世界的一部分，因而它必然是正当的。

假设卢梭的这个原则是合理的，那么他接下来的推论也就是正当的了：“女性特别地长于世故，这非常合理地补偿了她们在体力方面的不足。没有这个才能，女人就无法成为男人的伴侣，而只能是他的奴隶。正是靠着这些高超的手腕和机巧，她才保住了与男人平等的地位，她们假装服从，实则却支配着男人。女人面临很多的不利条件，像是男人的缺陷和她们自己的胆怯和软弱：除了诡诈和美色，她们再没有什么可仗恃的了。所以她应当要培养自己的手腕和美貌，这不是很合理吗？”伟大的心灵绝不会与狡黠或世故并存，当这些议论的真意是让人变得不诚实和虚伪时，我不会犹豫不决，而要凭着良心说：有哪一种人是被创造成这个样子，必须接受并非严格遵循真理原则的教育？在这种情形之下，所谓美德也不过就是墨守成规罢了。在做出这种建议后，卢梭怎么敢声称男女两性在人生的终极意义上的目标应当是相同的？他明明知道，人的心智是由其所追求的事物塑造而成的，当伟大的目标压倒了渺小的追求，心灵就会变得开阔，反之则会变得狭隘。

男性在体力上具有优势，但是如若不是对“美”的错误观念，女性也将能获得足够的体力使她们可以自立谋生，获得真正意义上的独立。她们也会能够承受身体上的不便和辛劳，而这正是使心灵强大所必不可少的条件。

如果允许我们女性在幼儿时期和青年时期都得以进行和男孩子同样的锻炼，从而达到身体上的完美状态，那么我们才会知道男性体能的天赋到底有多么优越。如果一个人在人生的播种时期没有得到任何照顾，我们能期望她有什么理性或美德呢？不会有的——上天不会让风儿把许多有用的种子随意撒在休耕的土地上。

“美不在衣装，卖弄风情的技艺也不是那么早、那么快就能学到的。然而女孩子们在很年轻的时候，就能学会动人的姿势、悦耳的声调、轻盈大方的仪态举止，而且她们还善于使她们的神色和姿态与时间、地点、场合等因素优雅地保持一致。既然她们已经显示出了其他的才能，而且这些才能的作用也是显而易见的，那么她们就不该只是勤于习练做针线的手艺。”“我认为，一个英国少女应该培养她讨人喜爱的才能，以便能取悦于她未来的丈夫，她应该像一个切尔克斯少女那样小心翼翼、勤勤恳恳地磨炼自己的才能，好让自己能够适应东方帕夏的闺房生活。”

为了使女性彻底地成为微不足道之人，他又说：“女人说话是非常流利的，她们开口说话比男人要早，也说得更容易、更动听，她们也常因为太过饶舌而被嫌弃。不过她们就应该是这样的，我非常愿意把这种指责转变成赞扬，她们的嘴唇和双眼也同样应该像舌头那样灵活。男人谈论他知道的事，女人谈论她喜欢的事，前者需要知识，后者需要品位；男人谈话的主要目标在于有用，而女人则是为了讨人喜欢。除了要说真话之外，男人的谈话和女人的谈话不应该有任何共同之处。”

“因此，我们不该像制止男孩子多话那样去限制女孩子的饶舌。我们要严厉地质问男孩子：‘你为什么要谈这个？’但是对女孩子，则要问另一个同样难回答的问题：‘你的谈话怎样才能受欢迎？’她们应当从还是无力分辨是非的小孩子的时候，就把这当作法律来遵守：永远不要说任何会使她们的听众不愉快的话。她们在做到这一点的同时，还要做到前面所说的不可敷衍与说谎，这就令事情变得更为困难了。”要遵从这样的规矩去说话，可真是需要极好的技巧。无论男女，都花了太多的心思去练习这些技巧。可是，在他们的滔滔不绝的对谈之中，发自内心的话语却是多么的稀少啊！太少了，以至于像我这样喜欢有话直说的人，在一会儿进行评论的时候会很乐于不再讲究礼貌——为了保持礼貌，人们已经放弃了将近一半的美德，可是礼貌这种性质不明的特质，充其量也不过是可以为美德做一点润色罢了。

不过我还是先引完他的这段描述吧。“我们很容易理解，如果连男孩子都没有能力形成任何真正的宗教观念，那么这必定更是大大超出了女孩子的理解能力。正因为如此，所以我要更早地开始和女孩子们谈论这个话题，因为如果要一直等到她们有能力去系统地谈论这种深奥问题的那一天才开始探讨的话，我们有可能一辈子也等不到开口的时机。女人的理性是一种实用的理性，她们可以巧妙地找到达成既定目标的手段，却永远也发现不了目标本身。两性之间的社会关系实在是值得赞叹：男人和女人合在一起就会产生一个道德意义上的人，女人是这个人的眼睛，而男人则是这个人的手，他们彼此相互依赖，女人通过男人知应该看什么，而男人通过女人学到了他应当做什么。如果女人能像男人那样做事时总想着基本原则，而男人也有能力像女人那样深入细节，两性彼此互不依赖，那他们就会生活在永远的纷争中，他们的结合也就不复存在了。但现在，他们和谐自然地共处，各有不同的才能，却指向同一个目标，很难说哪一个对此贡献更大：他们互相驱使，彼此服从，都是主人。”

“既然女性的行为要受到舆论的约束，那么出于同样的理由，她在宗教信仰上也应当服从权威。每一个女儿都应当信仰她母亲所信奉的宗教，每一个妻子都应当信仰她丈夫所信奉的宗教，因为，即使这种宗教是异端，但是女儿对母亲的驯顺使得她们母女服从了自然的秩序，在上帝看来，这将抵消她们错信宗教的罪过。既然她们没有能力为自己做出决断，就应该像遵守教会的决定一样，毫无疑义地服从她们的父亲和丈夫的决定。”

“既然女性的宗教信仰应当由权威者来决定，那就没有必要向她们解释信仰的原因，而只需要精确地制定她们所需信奉的教条：因为那些只表达模糊观点的信条会导致迷信，而那些看来荒谬悖理的信条则会令人变得不够虔诚。”

看起来，绝对的、无可置疑的权威一定在什么地方存在着：但这难道不是在直接而专横地篡夺理性的地位吗？亚当以降，人类的权利就只属于男性。而卢梭甚至还要将男性的特权更加推而广之，他婉转迂回地表明，他不会谴责那些坚决主张把女性置于最深的无知之渊的人们。只是为了使女性得以保持贞洁以及向世人证明男性的选择的正当性，才不得不教会她们一些关于男性的知识，以及告诉她们一些与人类情欲有关的惯例。如果不是因为保持了这样的无知，女性怎会待在家里生养后代，而不至于因为有了自己的想法而变得不那么妖娆与天真了呢？——当然，在新婚第一年的时候，她还是需要些理智来穿衣打扮的，就像苏菲那样。“她的服装看上去非常端庄得体，实际上却极具风情：她并未展现她的动人之处，而是把它们都藏了起来，但是她知道如何利用这种隐藏来激起你的想象。每一个见到她的人都会说她是一个端庄朴素的女孩，但是当你走近她的身边，你的视线和情感就会迷失在她身上，你无法将它们从她身边拉开。你会发现，她的衣装虽然每个部分看起来都很简单，却配合得恰到好处，让人想要将之片片剥离。”这是端庄得体吗？这是想要达到不朽的永生吗？再看看吧，当这位作家如此谈论他的女主人公时，我们能对这种教育体制说什么呢？“对她来说，考虑把事情做好只是次要的，她最关心的是要把事情做得漂亮巧妙。”

事实是，她所有的美德和品质都是次要的。因为说到宗教，卢梭让苏菲的父母告诉她说要习惯于服从——“你的丈夫会适时引导你的”。

为了让这颗心灵保持美好，卢梭是如此的束缚着一个女性的心灵——如果说他还没有使之变得一片空白的话——他又建议她去思考，免得一个男人在厌倦了爱抚于她之后的沉思里，会因为她的陪伴而哈欠连天。可是一个必须服从他人的女人，又有什么可思考的？开阔了她的视野，却只是为了让她看到自己那黑暗而悲惨的命运，这难道不是残忍的行为吗？然而这就是卢梭那高妙的意见。请读者自行判断，它与下边这些我为了对这个问题进行公正的考察而不得不引用的文字有多么的一致。

“那些终生只为果腹而劳碌的人，在自己的日常工作和个人利益之外别无他想，他们全部的理智好像都集中到手指尖上去了。这样的无知并不会有损于他们的正直和品德，往往还对它们有好处。有时我们太过依赖思考，反而把该做的事情给弄得复杂了，最终用一些空话、套话取代了做实事。我们自己的良心是最明智的哲人。一个男人，不需要熟读西塞罗的《论义务》，就可以成为一个正直的人，而世界上最具有美德的女人，也许就是最不明白美德所谓何意的女人。但与此同样正确的是：与理性充分发展的人交往，令人愉快。不仅如此，如果一个热爱家庭的父亲会因为身边无人可解衷肠而不得不将自己的思想感情总是封闭起来的话，那也是件可悲的事情。

“此外，一个无法思考的女性怎么会有能力去教育她的子女呢？她如何辨别哪些事情对孩子们来说是恰当的？她怎么能引导孩子们学到那些她并不了解的美德，或者是那些她对之毫无概念的优点呢？她只能溺爱或责骂他们，使他们变得粗鲁无礼或胆小羞怯，孩子们会长成徒有其表的纨绔子弟或是头脑空空的笨蛋傻瓜，她永远无法使他们成为明智而和蔼的人。”的确，如果男女合一才能成为一个有道德的人的话，那么当丈夫不能一直在她身边提供理性的决定时，女性要如何做到这些事？一双“没有手的眼睛”，只有盲目的意愿，无法远行，而且恐怕丈夫那抽象的理性——本应用来集中妻子那分散的“实用的理性”——正被用于品鉴红酒滋味、评论最好的甲鱼调味汁，或者是被更为专注地用在牌桌上，当他押上自己的全部财产之时，像教育子女这样的琐事就都留给他的伴侣或者运气去解决了。

但是，就算我们承认女性为了使自己成为一个更加诱人沉醉的伴侣，应当美丽、无知而傻气——可为什么一定要为此而放弃她的理性呢？而且为什么仅仅只是为了在极短的时间里成为丈夫所爱的情人（这是卢梭自己的说法），就必须要做这么多准备呢？没有谁会比卢梭更加强调爱情短暂易逝的本质了。这位哲人是这么说的：“感官的愉悦是短暂易逝的。在习以为常之后，爱情就会因为得到了满足而消失。想象力美化了我们激情的对象，但一旦修成正果，想象就消失了。除了永恒而至高的上帝，只有幻想之物才是美好的。”

但是当他对苏菲说着这些话的时候，他又陷入了他那莫名其妙的悖论：“爱弥儿一旦成为你的丈夫，也就成了你的主人，你应当服从他。这是大自然的安排。如果说男人都能娶到苏菲这样的妻子，那么叫男人听女人的话也是合适的：这也是符合自然的法则的。我之所以要你节制他的享乐，是为了使你能像他作为男人可以控制你的身体一样，有权控制他的心。这也许需要你进行一些艰难的自我克制，但是，如果你能够控制自己享乐的欲望的话，你也就可以控制他了。从我观察到的情况来看，我认为你是有勇气做出这个困难的尝试的。

“想让你的丈夫一直都拜倒在你的裙下吗？那就要使他同你的身体之间始终保持一点距离。只要你知道如何使你的爱显得稀有而宝贵，你就能够长期维持爱情的权威。如此你甚至可以使用调情的技巧来修炼美德，用爱情的技巧来增进理性。”

我最后再摘录一段对这对令人愉悦的夫妻的公道描述。“然而你切不可以为，有如此这般的用心经营就足够了。不管你多么小心谨慎，愉快的享受还是会渐渐褪去激情的外衣。不过，当爱情已经不能再长久地持续下去之后，一种美好的习惯就会填补爱情留下的空隙，夫妻之间彼此信任的亲密会代替那情不自禁的激情。孩子常常给夫妻带来一种比爱情本身更为愉快和长久的关系。即使你不再是爱弥儿的情人，你仍然会是他的妻子和朋友，他孩子的母亲。”

卢梭的确注意到了孩子比爱情更能在夫妻之间建立起长久的联结。他说一对夫妻在共同生活六个月以后，美貌就不会再有价值，甚至不会再引起注意。矫揉造作的姿态与风情也同样会失去对感官的吸引力。那么他为什么要说，一个女孩子应当为了她的丈夫而受教育，就像那些生活在闺房里的伊斯兰国家的女孩一样？

我现在想要请大家好好地运用你们的良知，来思考这些不切实际的幻想与被美化了的放荡。如果教育的目标是为了让女性准备好成为贞洁的妻子和明智的母亲，那么前面引文中所推荐的那种看似有理的方法，是否就是能达到这一目标的最好方法呢？我们能承认，要造就一个贞洁的妻子的最可靠的方式，竟然是教导她练习情妇所使用的放荡手段吗？好色之徒把这种放荡称之为符合美德的风情，他们已经不能体会不染铅华的纯朴魅力，或者品味温柔的亲密关系所带来的乐趣了——可恰恰是在这纯朴的魅力与温柔的关系中，夫妻之间的信任才不会因为怀疑而受到阻碍，并且他们也能感受到感官上的乐趣。

一位男士，如果对于与漂亮、实用但没有头脑的伴侣共同生活感到心满意足，那么他已经在感官享乐中丧失了品味更为高尚的享受的能力。他从来不曾感受到被一个能够理解他的人爱着的那种平静的满足，那满足的感觉就像天上那无声的甘露，使焦渴的心灵滋润复苏。除非他已丧失人性，否则他即使与妻子待在一起也仍然会感觉孤独。一位著名的哲学理论家说过：“生命的魅力在于有人与你有情感上的共鸣，没有什么会比找到一个能够在所有情感上都与我们感受相通的人，更让我们快乐的了。”

可是，根据那些女性不应当学习知识的论调，她们只被当作是男性欲望的、昙花一现的对象。她们的青春年华，她们随着年龄渐长而达成的成长，以及她们对未来合理的期望，都要为此而被牺牲。而且，如果我们既不允许女性拥有理智作为她们品德的基石，又不允许她们将真理作为追寻的目标，那卢梭又怎么能够期望她们可以成为忠贞有德的人呢？

而卢梭在论证上所犯的一切错误都是与他的感性有关，可是女性很愿意原谅他对她们魅力的过分关注！在应当进行理性的论证的时候，他却满怀热忱，对这个问题的思考没有能够激发他的理性，却让他的想象力充分活跃起来。他生来激情饱满、想象力充沛，可这些优点只是让他在这个问题上迷失得更远——他被自己的这种天性所引领，是如此热切地爱慕着女性，以至于很快就成为了耽于情欲的人。如果他任由欲火发泄，也许它就会自然而然地燃烧殆尽直至熄灭，可他是有德行的人，还有一种富有浪漫色彩的文雅矜持的观念，这让他试图克制自己的欲望，他在让自己的行为受制于恐惧、矜持与道德的同时，却放纵想象力败坏堕落，想象增强了他对欲望的感知，并为它们描绘上最鲜明浓烈的色彩，也将它们深深地铭刻在了他的灵魂之中。

卢梭于是开始寻求孤独，不再与自然之子同眠，却也不像曾经的牛顿先生那样在树荫下冷静地思考着各种现象的缘由，他仅仅是沉迷于自己的各种心绪感受。他是如此热烈地描摹他那强烈的情绪，以至于读者们被他吸引，也随之展开了幻想。他巧妙地展现着他的那些幻想对象，无论她们看起来是极具风情还是端庄文雅。读者们与这位诗人般的作家产生了共鸣，深深地坠入了他的幻境，也一样深深地相信着自己是在理性上被他说服了。他使我们幻想着自己在进行理性的思考，可实际上我们只是在感受情绪，错误的结论却就此留在了心中。

为何卢梭的生活始终在大悲大喜之间摇摆？答案确定无疑：是他那沸腾的想象力造就了这些情绪，如果他可以让自己的想象平息下来的话，他是有可能获得更为坚强的心智的——话虽如此，可是如果生命的目的只是培养人的脑力的话，那么他已经做得非常好了——如今，死亡已将他带往天国那更高贵的所在。其实，即使仍然活在世间，他也有可能享受到与在那里同等的幸福：只要他不再去培养那些使文明人躁动不安的情绪，不再只将幸福的期望寄托在遥远的天国，他就会感受到自然之子的平和安宁。

愿他的灵魂得到安息！我无意攻击逝者，我反对的是他的观点。我只是在对他的感性宣战，因为它引导卢梭把女性贬低成了爱情的奴隶。

“可诅咒的奴隶身份，

起初作为偶像，及至爱情热火熄灭，

就被那些曾向我们献殷勤者奴役。”

——德莱顿

有些作家的作品，一方面表示臣服于女性的个人魅力，另一方面却有暗中贬低女性的恶劣倾向。无论怎么去揭露他们，都不算多，也不算过分。

我亲爱的、当代的女性同胞们啊，让我们超越上述那些狭隘的偏见吧！如果智慧本身是值得向往的，如果美德——我指的是名副其实的美德——必须建立在知识之上，那就让我们通过思考来加强心智，直到我们的头脑与心灵达到平衡。我们不要再把心思都花在微不足道的日常琐事之上，不要再只学着如何抓住情人或丈夫的心，让我们所做的每一件事都服从于提升理性的伟大目标吧，让我们将感情投入到更为高尚的事务中去！

我的朋友们，请你们当心，不要为了任何琐事萦怀：芦苇随风摇摆，活不过一年的时间，而橡树则坚定地站立，勇敢地面对着经年累月的雨打风吹。

如果我们被创造出来，就只是为了浪掷光阴然后死去——那我们为什么不沉溺于感性，嘲笑严格的理性呢？可是啊，即使如此，我们也需要强健的身心，否则我们生命就会消逝在狂热的享乐或无聊的怠惰之中。

我们的教育制度有一系列想当然的预设条件，它假定美德能够让我们免于人生的苦难，而且摆脱了束缚的幸运女神会微笑着为每一位受过良好教育的女士送来一个爱弥儿或者忒勒玛科斯（Telemachus）。这是完全不对的，而我也热切地希望这样的教育制度能够被彻底地改变。实际上，美德许给她的信徒的奖赏，很显然只在信徒们自己的心间，具备美德的人时常要面对最令人伤脑筋的世俗琐事，还要忍受那些从行为到性情都令人无法欣赏的亲戚朋友。

这世上有许多女性，并不依靠她们父兄的理性和美德活着，反而是在与他们的恶习和愚蠢作斗争的过程中提升了自己的心智。她们也从来没有遇到过一个英雄般的丈夫，能够补偿之前人们对她们的亏欠。她已经有了自己的理性，他再不能令她回到自然地依赖于他人的状态。她已经得到了不被他人的观念所左右的力量，他也再不能令她将这特权归还给男性。

第二节

福代斯博士的布道集早已被列为青年女子的读物之一。不仅她们，还在学校里的女孩儿们也可阅读此书。但是我希望能够引导女孩儿们在更为广阔的基础上建立起健全的原则，以提升她们的理性，所以我会毫不犹豫地将此书从她们的书目中剔除出去，哪怕只是为了培养她们的趣味，我也会这样做，虽然这本书里确实包含不少明智的论断。

福代斯博士心中也许有非常值得称颂的目标，可是他的作品的风格是如此的矫揉造作，就算我并不反对他那些甜言蜜语的规箴，光是因为这种风格，我也不能让女孩子们去阅读他的作品，除非我想要熄灭她们身上的每一点自然之光，让一切人性都化为女性的软弱和造作的优雅。我用了“造作”这个词，是因为真正的优雅应当来自于某种精神上的独立。

孩子们无心讨人喜爱，只想着如何让自己开心，却往往显得非常优美自在。而那些绝大部分时候有下人侍候的富有贵族，确有一种行动自如的优雅举止，但那与其说是真正发自心灵的高尚的优雅，不如说只是习惯性的形体上的优美。心灵的优雅常常闪现在未经雕琢的面容上，它照亮了整张面容，展现出心灵的纯朴与自立，这是世俗的眼光所无法发现的美。我们从这人的眼中看到了不朽的人格，也在其举手投足间感受到灵魂的存在。可是在静止休憩之时，这面容和四肢并没有什么突出的魅力，举止上也没有什么特别之处足以吸引大众的注意。然而，大部分人都寻求一种更为具体有形的美。虽然人们通常也会对纯朴表示敬意，可他们并没意识到自己所钦佩的究竟是什么，而且，没有真实，又何来纯朴呢？——以上所说的这些，虽然是由这个话题所自然引发的，可多少还是有些离题了。

福代斯博士激情澎湃地将卢梭的雄辩言辞继续引申开去，他用最富感性的激昂言辞，详细地讲述了他对女性品格的观点，以及女性要如何举止才能使自己可爱。

他应该是代表自己在讲话，因为他以整个自然来满足男性的需求。“好好看看这些微笑的、天真的生灵，我已经赐给她们我最好的礼物，把她们交给你们来保护，怀着爱恋与敬意好好看看她们吧，要温柔和崇敬地对待她们。她们胆小羞怯，需要保护。她们脆弱娇柔，哦，可别利用她们的柔弱欺负她们啊！让畏惧和羞赧使她们变得更加可爱吧。永远不要滥用她们对你们的信任。可你们中难道会有人是如此的野蛮和穷凶极恶，竟然会辜负她们的信任吗？扪心自问，你们难道能从如此温顺而信任你的生灵手上去夺取珍宝，或者是做出任何会剥去她们天生的美德之袍的行为吗？我要诅咒那些竟敢玷污白璧无瑕的贞洁玉体的邪恶之手！你们这些卑鄙的恶棍、无耻的流氓！要自制，别冒险去惹来上天最猛烈的报复。”我不知道要如何对这段奇文做出认真的评价，我还能找出许多类似的文章来，其中有一些实在是太滥情了，以至于我听到一些理性的人们在提到它们时嫌恶地使用了“下流”一词。

应该教育男孩子和女孩子把这种对感性的炫耀、这种从头到尾都泛滥着冷漠和矫揉造作的情感，看作是心灵渺小空虚的标志而加以鄙视。在矫情地呼唤着天国，以及天国在凡间最美好的形象——美丽天真的女人之时，清醒的理性被他们远远地丢开了。这些话绝非肺腑之言，也许入耳颇为动听，却不能打动心灵。

也许有人会告诉我，公众喜欢阅读这类著作。这话不假——赫威的《沉思录》虽然既有违理性又败坏品位，却仍不乏读者。

我特别反感那些随处可见的、渴求着激情却假托爱情之名的论调。如果女性曾被允许无须管束自由地行走，她们又怎会需要被以机巧的奉承和带有性欲意图的恭维来诱往美德之路呢？用真实和冷静的语言对她们说话，丢开那套纡尊降贵的、哄孩子似的把戏吧！教会她们把自己当作是理性的人来尊重，而不是对自己无聊的外表充满热情。每当听到卫道士喋喋不休地说起服饰和针线活，我就感到作呕，更令人恶心的是，他还要谈论“英国的淑女，淑女中的淑女”一类的话，就好像英国女性除了情绪之外再无其他任何值得谈论的方面。

甚至是在劝诫女性要虔诚的时候，福代斯博士也使用了如下这样的论述：“一位窈窕淑女最令人惊为天人的时刻，也许就是在她陷入虔诚的追思之时。在怀着这种最高贵的思想时，她不知不觉地表现出超凡的尊贵和别致的优雅，以至于她身上似乎散发出了圣洁之美的光芒，令旁观者几乎产生幻觉，觉得她是置身于一群与她同类的天使之中在一起进行礼拜！”为何要培养女性的征服欲呢？在这个意义上使用“征服”这个词，让我感到恶心极了！难道宗教和美德还不能提供更强大的动力，更光明的奖赏吗？难道女性就总是要顾虑着她们作为男性的伴侣的身份，而贬低自己的价值吗？难道必须教导她们要永远地取悦于他人吗？而当女性将她的小小炮口瞄准男性的胸膛的时候，是否有必要告诉她们，只要有一点点的理性就足以使她们的关心显得特别地体贴呢？“女人只要有一丁点儿知识就会变得很有趣，同样地（虽然是出于不同的理由），女人只要有一点点善意的表示就会令人欢欣，尤其如果她是一位美人儿的话！”我就是这样认为的。

为何要告诉女孩子她们像是天使，却又将她们的地位置于成年女性之下？一个温柔天真的女孩儿也许比任何其他人或物都更接近我们所塑造的天使形象。可是，那些孩子却同时被告知，她们只在年轻貌美时才像天使，所以，她们获得尊崇，是由于外表而非美德。

无聊的空话！除了虚荣和愚昧，这种虚妄的奉承话还能导致什么结果？恋爱中的人的确是可以破格地去赞颂他的情人，他的理性就像是浮在激情之上的泡沫，当他借用倾慕之言表达心声的时候，他并不是在说谎。他的想象力也许会将他心目中的偶像抬高到毫无瑕疵的超人的地位之上，而如果女性只会被爱着她们的男性所奉承，那对她们来说将是幸福的事。我是说，那个男子爱着她这个人，而非她的性别，但是一个庄重的布道者难道应该在他的讲道中掺入这类蠢话吗？

然而，无论是布道词还是小说，字里行间都真真切切地体现出了对感官享受的沉迷。卫道士们允许男性顺其自然地培养各种不同的品质，同一种激情几乎可以幻化成无数不同的性格特征，出现在每个个体身上。一个好男人既可以是暴躁易怒的也可以是乐观开朗的，既可以是喜气洋洋的也可以是严肃庄重的，哪一种都不会受到谴责。他们可以坚持己见到傲慢专横的地步，也可以是软弱顺从，毫无主见的，但是所有的女性却都得温顺、驯良，都得是同一种个性：驯顺的温柔，温柔的驯顺。

我要引用这位传道士自己的话：“要注意到，对你们女性来说，让自己变得男性化的练习绝对是既不优美又不得体的。男性的语调、姿态、气质、举止，都是绝对要不得的。一个有鉴赏力的男人在任何女人身上所寻求的，都是她们温柔的特质、悠然的嗓音、娇弱的形体，还有雅致有礼的举止。”

再看下面这段描写——这不正是一个家庭奴隶的肖像？“我对许多女人的愚蠢感到吃惊，她们还在指责自己的丈夫抛下她们孤零零一个，更喜欢她们之外的其他伙伴，或是对她们有这样那样漠视和冷淡的迹象，但是说实话，这在很大程度上要归咎于她们自己。我并不是站在男人的立场上为他们的任何错误开脱。但是，如果你们女人在丈夫面前表现得更加恭敬服从，也同样更加的温柔；留心他们的情绪，原谅他们的过错，在不重要的小事上服从他们的观点，放过他们的一点点不公正、任性或愤怒；对急躁的话温柔作答，尽可能地少抱怨，每天都想着如何减轻他们的忧虑，劝解他们的欲望，在沉闷时活跃气氛，唤起幸福快乐的念头，如果你们照这些做了，恐怕你们不仅能够保持住，还能赢得丈夫更多的尊重，从而保证你们能对他们施加各种影响，有助于他们的美德也有助于你们对彼此的满意，而你们的家也会从此成为天堂般幸福的所在。”这样的女性只能是个天使——不然就是头蠢驴——因为我在她身上看不到一丁点儿人性的迹象，在这个家庭奴隶的身上既没有理性也没有激情，她只是在为了一个暴君而活着。

如果福代斯博士真的以为这样的行为能挽回即将消逝的爱情，而不是激起丈夫的轻蔑，那么他一定非常不了解人类的心灵。不，美貌、温柔等等等等，或许可以赢得男性的爱情，但是唯一长久的感情——尊重，却只能靠理性所带来的美德赢取。要想使得他人对她的柔情始终鲜活，唯有赢得对方对她理性的尊重。

这些书太经常被放到年轻人的手中，所以我给了它们更多关注，严格说来它们并不值得，但我不能轻易放过它们，因为它们的确败坏了许多女性同胞的品位，削弱了她们的理性。

第三节

格雷戈里博士的《父亲的赠女遗言》中充满了父亲对女儿的关爱之情，因此我在批判它时也怀着深切的敬意，但是这册小书对一些最可敬的女性也很有吸引力，所以我不能不对其中的论述做出评论，这些论述看似有理地支撑起了一些我认为对于女性的道德和行为极其有害的观点。

格雷戈里博士平易亲切的风格特别适合于他建议的主旨，而且整本书弥漫着他追忆爱妻的愁思柔情，因而更加引人入胜。然而，书中的许多段落还是非常突兀地表现出了某种言简意赅的高雅风格，打乱了读者对他的情感共鸣，当我们只是想要看到一位父亲时，眼前却突然出现了一位作家。

此外，他同时兼顾着两个主题，但没有将任何一个贯彻到底。因为他希望自己的女儿有一副温柔的好脾气，可又害怕将柔情的观念灌输给她们，只会为她们招来不幸，因为柔情可能会使她们脱离生活的一般轨道，却又不能相应地给予她们在这种情况下所应有的独立和尊严。他控制着自己的思想，不让它自然流露，结果在两方面都没有提出什么建议。

在前言中，他告诉女儿们一个可悲的事实：“在她们的一生中，至少会有一次，她们能够听到一个无意欺骗她们的男人的真情流露。”

不幸的女人啊！据说你们天生注定依靠这些男人的理性和扶持，可他们却全部都有意要欺骗你们，我对你们的人生还能有什么指望呢！这就是罪恶的根源，它在你们的一切美德上散布腐朽的霉斑，使你们刚刚萌发的才能之芽枯萎，使你们成为现在这种软弱的样子！两性各有不同的利益——这种潜在的对立状态，暗中破坏了道德，将人类分裂为两个阵营！

如果说有一些女性是因为爱情而遭遇不幸——那么还有更多女性在社交生活中，因男性那冰冷而毫无意义的殷勤客套而变得虚荣且无用！然而这种对女性毫无真心的殷勤客套，却被认为是非常有男子气概和高雅有礼的行为。我恐怕除非整个社会制度发生很大的改变，否则我们无法以一种更加合理和温情的方式来取代和根除这种野蛮习俗的遗迹。此外，这种假殷勤披着虚假的高贵的外衣，为了剥除它，我必须指出：在文明程度最高的欧洲国家中，假殷勤非常盛行，与之相伴随的就是道德的极端败坏。我要特别提一下葡萄牙，在这个国家，假殷勤取代了最为严肃的道德义务。在那里，一般而言，男性在和女性结伴而行时不会遭到暗杀，假殷勤的骑士风度会让残暴的凶手放弃行凶，可是如果凶手无法克制自己复仇的行为，他会请求那位同行的女士原谅他的粗鲁，并且平静地离开，那时她身上也许已经溅满了她丈夫或兄弟的鲜血。

我先不谈格雷戈里博士对宗教的批评，因为我打算单辟一章来讨论这个话题。

在他关于行为举止的评论中，有很多看似合情合理的观点，可我却对它们完全不能同意，因为在我看来它们的出发点是错的。充分发展的理性和善良温柔的心灵，从来都不需要拘泥于刻板的礼法，它们的表现比合体的礼仪更加具有实质性的含义。若无理性，礼法所规定的行为举止，不过是装腔作势而已。可对于有些人来说，它确实必不可少！正是它取代了女性的天性，消灭了女性性格中一切的质朴和多样性。不管怎样，这种肤浅的建议能带来什么好结果呢？确实，大家都热衷于提供行为规范，而不是教导人们学习运用理性，因为指点别人这般或那般行事，远比教会她们运用理性容易。但话说回来，当一个人的头脑储备了足够的知识，并在运用的过程中得以发展强化的时候，它自会为规范人的行为提供可靠的指导。

举例来说，他明知道任何狡诈的手段都必然会毒害心灵，为何还要给出下面这些警告？为何要把由理性和信仰所共同推动的伟大的行为目标，跟各种世俗卑劣的花招混为一谈，就为了博得那些愚笨而庸俗的傻瓜们的认同吗？“在你们表现自己良好的理性的时候，也要小心谨慎。人们会认为你想要让自己显得比同伴们都要优越——所以，就算你们有什么学识，也要将它深藏不露，尤其是在男人面前，男人通常都会以一种嫉妒和恶毒的眼光来看待才华卓著而富有见识的女性。”如果真正优秀的男性，能够像他后面所说的那样，超越这类卑劣的行为，那又有什么必要去调整全体女性的行为来取悦那些笨蛋——那些除了性别之外，作为一个个体别无任何值得尊敬之处的人们？实际上，只有性别这么一点儿男性共有优越性的男人，他们会坚持宣称男性性别的优越，真是十分的情有可原啊。

如果总要去迁就伴侣的调门才算合宜，那对女性举止的要求就没完没了了。而且那样一来，调门老是在变，连降调都要被当成是本位音了。

当然，更明智的做法是建议女性自我提升，直到摆脱虚荣的熏染，然后再改变公众的观念——哪儿有不可改变妥协的规矩呢？真理与美德的小径既不偏左也不偏右，它是一条笔直向前的道路，而诚挚地追寻此道的人，可能超越了许多繁冗的偏见，却不曾偏废端庄得体的美德。让心灵纯净，让智慧运转，我敢说这样的人是绝不会做出冒犯他人的行为的。

许多年轻人热衷于获得时髦的气质，而这总会让我想起那些刻意仿古，却了无新意且兼乏味的现代画作。这些作品灵气尽失，各个部分散乱杂陈，没有一种可以称之为风格的特质将它们统一在一起。这种表面光鲜的时髦，几乎与理性无关，但却会使软弱的人目眩神迷，可是如果它只是顺其自然地发展，倒也极少会令明智的人感到厌恶。此外，如果一位女士足够明智，不去不懂装懂的话，那么她也没有必要刻意隐藏才能不露锋芒。凡事听其自然，一切都会很好。

在这整本书中让我看不起的，就是这套虚伪做作。女人总是装作这样或那样——然而美德却在呼唤她们，用哈姆雷特的台词来说——“装作！我不知道如何装作！——我从来就是表里如一！”

这个论调还不断地被重复。在书中另一处，他建议女性要保持矜持（可他也并未清晰地说明何为矜持），之后又补充道：“男人会抱怨你有所保留。他们会向你保证说，更为坦率的言行举止会让你们更加迷人。但是相信我，他们的说法并非出自真心。我承认有些时候坦率会让你们成为更令人愉快的伙伴，可它也令作为女人的你们不那么迷人了：这是一个很重要的区别，可许多女性却都没有注意到。”

这想要永远做女人的愿望，是一种会令女性堕落的意识。我必须再次强调我之前的观点：除非是在爱人面前，否则女性只做一个令人愉快的、理性的同伴就很好了。但在这方面，格雷戈里博士的建议甚至和他自己这段话相矛盾，就是我打算以高度的赞许来引用的这段：

“人们假定一个女人在道德上是可靠的，于是毫无恶意地纵容她的多愁善感。殊不知这种多愁善感是极其粗鄙而危险的，对于许多女性来说，这确实可以说是她们致命的弱点。”我完全同意这个观点。但凡是还有一丝情感的人，无论男女，一定总是希望让自己心爱的人明白，他或她所乐于接受及回报的是指向某一个特定之人的情感，而非针对某一个性别的普遍情感，而他们之所以会彼此爱慕，也是因为被对方的心灵而非肉体所打动了。若无这种浑然天成的美质，爱情就会变成只关心自我满足的、自私的感情，人的品行也会随之堕落败坏。

我还要再进一步谈谈这种多愁善感。当喜爱尚未发展为爱情的时候，人们在私下里也会有不少亲密的举止。从一颗纯真的心灵中所自然流露出来的感情会让这些举止充满活力，但是如果是出于欲望、对女子献殷勤的风气或虚荣心，那么它们就是可鄙的。如果一位男士趁着扶一位陌生的漂亮女士上马车的时机去捏她的手的话，任何真正文雅的女士都会觉得这是一种无礼轻率的冒犯，而不会为了自己的美色受到了无聊的尊崇而沾沾自喜。这些亲昵的举止应该是关系友好的人们之间才会有的行为，或者是由于人们发现他人身上的美德的时候所油然而生的尊崇——满心只有兽欲的人是无权要求这种友好的表示的。

我乐于说服我的姐妹们遵循更质朴的行事原则，我希望她们能把现在被用来滋养虚荣的心力都用来培养真正的情感。让她们值得被爱，她们自然就会得到爱情，即使她们根本没有听到过这样的话：“一位淑女所拥有的征服男人——最优秀的男人——的心的力量，甚至超过她自己的想象。”

我已经批评了格雷戈里博士关于表里不一、女性温柔以及体格娇弱等方面的狭隘告诫了。他把这些事情翻来覆去地讲个不停，但确实他讲解的方式跟卢梭比起来，还是要得体多了。但是他们归根结底还是一回事，凡是不怕麻烦地去分析这些观点的人，都会发现虽然他们搭建的理论很是漂亮，可是作为理论基础的基本原则却远没有那么美妙动听。

关于娱乐消遣的话题，格雷戈里博士只是草草带过，但其论述的主旨与此无二。

在友谊、爱情以及婚姻的问题上，我跟格雷戈里博士的观点截然不同，我不会先发制人地谈论我在这些重要问题上的观点，我只把评论限制在他们对这些问题的一般论调上，谈谈那些关于家庭经营的谨慎建议和那些不甚高明的关于爱情的片面观点。这些论调妄图使人摆脱不幸与错误，却也因此而让人们失去了愉悦和进步。它们对于心灵和头脑的防卫，反而摧毁了所有心智上的活力。即使时常受骗，也远好过从来不曾信任他人。；即使在爱情中失望，也远好过从未爱过；即使失去了丈夫的宠爱，也远好过不再被他尊重。

如果所有这些建立在狭隘的计划基础之上的、对于世俗欢乐的徒劳渴求，可以转变为对提升理性的热切追求，那将是世界的大幸，当然也是个人的大幸。先贤的智慧对人类的女儿们说：“智慧乃首要之事，因此须有智慧，然后再通过汝等所拥有的一切去获取理性。”又说，“汝等痴愚儿，热爱愚陋，恨恶智识，要到几时呢？”

第四节

我无意论及所有在女性行为这一主题上有所著述的作家——事实上，这样做就等于是在重复地讨论同一个问题，因为大致说来，他们的观点都如出一辙。我只是要抨击那种被男性引以为傲的特权——我可以毫不犹豫地说，这种特权是专制暴政的铁权杖，是暴君的原罪。我明确反对一切建立在偏见之上的权力，无论它有多么源远流长。

女性要服从于他人，这是否是正义的要求？我们只需请上帝对此进行裁决，因为他就是正义的化身。我们女性与男性一样都是上帝的子民，如果上帝不会因为我们较晚来到这世上就视我们如私生子的话，那么就让我们与男性一样地思考，并且学着倾听理性那清晰的声音、服从理性的权威。而如果我们证明了这种帝王般的特权只是建立在一大堆混乱的偏见之上，并没有一个内在的原则把它们有效地聚合起来，或者如果我们证明了它就像是建立在一头象、一只龟，甚至于只是一个人双肩之上那样根基不稳的话，那么，那些不顾后果地编造着特权神话的人们，可能会不顾一切地逃走，不再违背事物应有的秩序。

理性使人类超拔于禽兽，死亡也必如约而至为我们带来解脱，只有那些不相信自己力量的人，才会服从于盲目的权威。“他们是自由的，那些将要自由的人！”

能够控制自己的人，不会惧怕生命中的任何东西。但是如果有什么是比生命本身还要宝贵的话，那么哪怕倾尽所有也要得到它。我们热爱美德，必须是因为她本身所具有的价值——就像我们热爱其他一切有价值的东西一样——否则我们便不能拥有她。如果我们只是把美德当成是攫取名声的踏板，只因为要伪装出正确的立场才对她表示尊重，那么她就不会给予我们“超越人所能理解的”安宁，因为“诚实才是最好的策略”。

无可否认，那种能够让我们将一些智识和美德带去另一个世界的生活方式，是最能够保证我们此生的充实满足的。然而尽管人们普遍认为这个原则是无可争议的，却很少有人能够依此行事。这些清醒的信念，败给了现世的享乐和权势，人们斤斤计较于一时的幸福，却不顾及整个人生的快乐。有足够的远见和决心，能忍耐一时的不幸，以避免日后更大灾祸的人，是多么的少啊！少得简直找不到！

尤其是女性，她们的美德建立在并不稳固的偏见之上，因此很少能获得这样伟大的心灵。她是自己情感的奴隶，也很容易被别人的情感征服。她是如此的堕落，以至于她那蒙昧的理性，不但没能为她打破枷锁，反而还将它擦拭得更加光亮了。

我听到一些女性持有与男性相同的主张，出于根深蒂固的无知，她们鼓吹那些会让她们变得像禽兽一样的感性，我对此感到非常愤怒。

我得举一些例子来阐明我的主张。皮奥奇夫人常常死记硬背一些她并不理解的东西，她的作品呈现出约翰逊时代的文风。

她武断地对一位新婚的男士说道：“你不要在特立独行中寻找快乐，而且要对你的妻子在智能上的进步保持警惕，因为这会让她做傻事。”为了解释这个夸张的开场白，她又接着说道：“我的意思是说，你妻子的容貌不会变得越来越令你喜爱，但是请祈祷让她永远不会猜疑她对你的吸引力在变弱吧。大家都知道，女性原谅人们对她们理性的冒犯，可比原谅对她们容貌的冒犯要快得多，我们没有谁会反对这个论断。我们所有的成就和技艺，都是为了获得和留住男人的心。有什么屈辱，会比得上没有达到这一目标所带来的失望呢？对于一个有志气的女人来说，无论多尖锐的指责、多严厉的惩罚，都好过对她的忽视。如果她竟然能毫无抱怨地忍受忽视，那只能证明她打算以其他男人的殷勤来补偿她丈夫的怠慢！”

这是地道的男性观点。“我们所有的成就和技艺，都是为了获得和留住男人的心。”——这话是什么意思呢？——如果女性的容貌得不到丈夫的重视（就算是生得像美第奇一样匀称美丽，难道就完全不会被轻忽了吗？），她就要尽力地取悦其他男人以补偿自己。多高尚的品德啊！这是对全体女性的理性的侮辱，也让女性的美德不再建立在人类共同美德的基础之上。一位女士必须得明白，她的容貌在丈夫看来不会像在情人眼里那样讨人喜爱，如果她感到被丈夫的这种作为一个人的正常表现所冒犯了，那她大可因此而抱怨失去了他的心，就好像她抱怨失去了任何其他可笑的东西一样。这种缺乏洞察力的表现，和非理性的恼怒，恰恰会使她的丈夫不能将对她容貌的喜爱，转变为对她美德的仰慕，或者是对她理性的尊重。

当女性认同并遵照这类意见行事时，至少她们的理性是活该被男性轻视和指责的，这些男士把攻击的目标精准地锁定在了女性的头脑上，却从未指摘过她们的容貌。女士们不假思索地采纳了这些彬彬有礼的男士们的意见，可他们之所以提出这样的意见是因为女性如果有了头脑，就会妨碍他们的行为。女性应该明白，只有那被男性侮辱的理性，才能给一个沉浸在爱情中的女人以神圣的保护，因为人的感情总难免会掺杂一些杂质，这一点就如同我们不会停止对于获取美德这一人生终极目标的追求一样，永恒不变。

斯塔尔男爵夫人的观点和我适才引证的那位女士一样，只是更为热情。我曾偶然读到过她歌颂卢梭的作品，她的意见也是很多女性同胞的意见，我将引用一些她的评论作为例证。她评论说：“虽然卢梭竭力阻止女性介入公共事务，不让她们承担重要的政治角色，但是在谈到女人的时候，他花了多少力气想令她们满意啊！若他想要剥夺女性的一些不适合她们性别的权利，他又永久地归还给她们多少应有的权利啊！而他在试图削弱她们对于男人的思想的影响力的同时，他又是多么郑重地建立起了她们对于男人的快乐的统治权啊！他帮助她们离开那篡夺而来的宝座，又让她们稳稳地坐上了她们天命所归的王位。当她们试图效仿男人的时候，他满心愤慨，可是当她们带着一切专属于女性的魅力、软弱、德行与过失来到他面前时，他对她们美貌的尊敬几乎达到了崇拜的地步。”说得太对了！——确实从未有过哪个感官主义者曾在美色的神龛前奉上过如此狂热的崇拜。卢梭对美貌的尊崇确实无比虔诚，以至于他只想看到女性以魅力、软弱和过失来装扮自己，而且在他看来女性只需有忠贞一种美德即可（原因显而易见）。他唯恐严肃的理性会打扰爱情的温柔嬉闹。这个主人只想有一个美艳的奴隶供他玩弄，也完全地依赖他的理性和慷慨。他不想要一个不得不去尊重的伴侣，也不想要一个朋友——万一他在完成父亲的神圣职责之前，就不幸被死神夺去了生命，他可以放心地将子女的教育相托的那种朋友。他否认女性的理性，将她们关在知识的大门之外，驱赶她们远离真理，然而他还是得到了人们的原谅，因为“他承认爱的激情”。卢梭承认爱情，显然只是为了男性的享乐以及人类的繁衍。要讲明白为什么因为他这样认可了爱情，女性就要为他承担起这些责任这一点，原本是需要一点巧思的。可是他充满激情地谈论着这个话题，他的强有力的语调打动了那年轻的赞颂者的情感。于是斯塔尔夫人继续为他吟诵赞歌：“对女人来说最重要的一点是，卢梭的理性虽然在与她们争执统治权，可他的心却是忠诚地属于她们的。”可她们应该争取的，不是统治权——而是平等。而且，如果她们只是想延长她们的统治，那就不该完全依赖自己的美貌，因为美貌虽然可以赢得人心，却不能令其持久——哪怕是在盛极之时也不可能——除非至少还有一些精神上的美好来配合。

如果女性得到了充分的启蒙，能够在一个更广大的范围里去寻找她们真正的利益的话，我坚信她们将完全乐于放弃所有那些并非由于两人彼此相爱才有的特权——因为只有相爱才能让特权长久——而转向友谊所带来的平静满足，以及一贯的尊重所带来的温柔信心。婚前她们不会故意表现得轻慢无礼，婚后也不会悲惨地臣服。婚前婚后，她们都会尽力地像理智的人一样地行动，不会让自己从王座跌落到冷板凳上。

让利斯夫人为孩子们写过不少有趣的书。她的《教育书简》中有不少有用的建议，明智的父母一定会善加利用，但是她的观点是狭隘的，她的偏见既顽固又不合理。

她热烈地赞成末世永罚，我不想对此进行讨论，我一想到居然有人会为这样的话题而热烈地辩护就觉得脸红。我将只对她以父母的权威来取代理性的荒谬方式做一些评论。因为她不断地向别人灌输，不仅要盲目地服从家长，还要盲目地服从于世俗的舆论。

让利斯夫人讲了一个故事，说一个年轻男子根据他父亲的明确愿望，与一个富有的姑娘订了婚。在举行婚礼之前，女孩失去了所有财产，并且无人可以依靠。父亲采取了极端无耻的手段想要拆散他的儿子和这个女孩。儿子发现父亲的恶行，在正义感的驱使下，他和女孩结婚了。随之而来的却只有痛苦，原因无它，就在于他没有得到他父亲的许可就结婚了。如果可以这样蔑视正义，那宗教和道德将何以立足？出于同样的观点，她会认为一位年轻女士非常有教养，因为她愿意嫁给任何一位她的妈咪所乐于推荐的男子，或者是她虽然确实是出于自己的意愿而同某人结了婚，但却对此人没有任何热情——因为一位受过良好教育的女性是不会有时间去谈情说爱的。我们对一个如此辱没理性和天性的教育制度，能有多少的尊重？

她的作品里有许多这样的观点，却也混杂着一些确实能令人对她的心智肃然起敬的意见。然而她的信仰中掺杂着如此多的迷信，她的道德中混入了如此多的世俗成见，以至于我不能让年轻人去读她的作品，除非我事后可以再与他们谈论这个话题，以指出其中的矛盾。

夏博恩夫人的《书简》是如此的明智、谦逊而毫无矫饰，其中包含了很多有用的见解，我提到它们，只是为了向杰出的作者表示尊敬的赞美。诚然我并不能永远和她意见一致，不过我永远尊敬她。

谈到“尊敬”，我就想起了麦考莱夫人。她无疑是我们国家有史以来最具才干的女性。然而这样一位女性，竟然默默无闻地逝去，并未得到人们足够的敬慕追思。

无论如何，后人将会给她更加公正的评价，并且会记得凯瑟琳·麦考莱是一位与其性别“应有的”软弱毫不相容的、具有智识成就的人。她的写作风格，与她的作品所传达的见识一样，有力而明晰，没有表现出任何所谓的“性别”特质。

我不会说她有男人一般的理性，因为我不承认只有男性才有理性的傲慢假设。我认为她具备非常健全的理性，她的判断力是深思熟虑所结出的丰美果实，她是一个女性能够获得完备判断力的明证。她的洞察力超过世故，理性多过幻想，因此她的作品冷静有力、论证严密。同时同情和仁慈使她的作品饱含关切，令她的辩论充满生机和热情，促使读者不得不对之仔细斟酌。

当我最初想到要写这部批判作品的时候，我怀抱着一点无法压制的热望，希望能够得到麦考利夫人的赞许。但是不久便惊悉她已经不在人世，只留下我，为希望破灭而痛苦不安，因遗憾而静默肃然！

第五节

若要历数各类教育相关的著作，不可不提切斯特菲尔德勋爵的《家书》。我既无意分析他那怯懦悖德的理论，更不打算从他轻率琐碎的信文中找出一些明智有用的言论。不，我只打算对文中所公然宣扬的要早日通晓人情世故方面技巧的旨趣，提出一点意见。我敢于断言，这种技巧就像蓓蕾中的蛀虫，暗中吸取了年轻人那逐渐成长的力量，将本应唤起激情活力、温暖情怀和伟大决心的青春之泉变作毒药。

智者有言，万事皆有因缘。谁会在宜人的春日里寻找秋实？可是那些老于世故的导师们，不过把这当成是优美的辞令，他们不去培育年轻人的判断力，反而给他们灌输偏见，让他们的心肠变硬，随着经验的增长，他们成为了更加冷酷的人，我要为此与这些导师们理论一番。我认为，过早地了解人性的弱点，或所谓的通达人情世故，会使人变得心胸狭窄，并且压抑天然的青春热情，而这热情正是伟大才能与美德的源泉。硬要在心灵的小树苗抽枝展叶之前，就逼它长出经验的果实，不仅徒劳，还会枉耗其精力，阻断其自然成长，就像埋在地下的金属，当内聚力遭到破坏的时候，他的外形和坚实度也都会受到影响。

洞悉人心的诸君，请告诉我，想要帮助年轻人确立原则，却去告诉他们这些原则很少是稳固可靠的，这种方式难道不是很奇怪吗？当这些原则已被证明是不合理的时候，我们又怎能让年轻人养成这样的习惯并持之以恒？为何要如此贬抑青春的热情，彻底破坏了年轻人丰富的想象力呢？这刻板的戒律或许真能使人免于人间的困苦不幸，却也必然会阻碍了其在品德和智识两方面达到卓越。“猜疑”是每条路上的绊脚石，它会使天赋和仁慈无法得到任何充分的发挥，人生一切迷人的魅力都不复存在。在安逸的暮年还远远未曾到来之时，就已经开始退守到沉思冥想之中，只想要精神的安适和生活上有所保障。

一位在亲朋好友中成长的青年人，在青春期里，被勃发的生命力和各种本能的情感所驱动，通过阅读，得到了尽可能多的理论知识。他在进入社会的时候，对这世界怀抱着热切却错误的期待。然而这似乎是一个很自然的过程，在品德和工作志趣上，我们都应该遵从自然神圣的指引，切不可在应当谦卑跟从的时候擅自僭越。

世界上很少有人遵从原则行事，情绪和早年间养成的习惯是主要的原因。生活经验会让年轻人对于人类以及他们自己的心灵渐渐有所了解，他们会变得宽容克制。如果在这之前就将世界原本的模样展现在他们面前，他们又怎么能学会要如何控制自己的情绪、如何摆脱早已养成的习惯？他们不会将其他人类看作是与自己一样的、脆弱的生灵——注定要和人性的弱点斗争，时而展现出性格中光明的一面，时而又表现出其阴暗的一面，在爱与恶之间徘徊——而是如防备食人的猛兽般防备着同类，直到一切广义上的社会情感（也就是人性）都不复存在。

在人生中我们会逐渐发现我们本性之中不完美的方面，但同时，我们也会发现美德，我们在和其他人相处的过程中，会发现自己与他们都有着同样的人生目标，于是我们在自己和他人之间找到了千丝万缕的关联。若是我们通过那非自然的方式仓促地去认识世界的话，我们是不会想到这一点的。当我们看到愚蠢的行为逐步演化成为一种罪恶的时候，我们在谴责这罪恶的同时，也会感到惋惜。但是，如果可怕的罪行突然出现在我们面前，恐惧和嫌恶就会使我们变得过分地严厉，我们可能在情绪的引导下，盲目而热切地扮演起一个全知全能的角色，谴责我们的同胞凡人，说他们应当下地狱。我们在这样做的时候，忘记了自己并不能读懂别人的心灵，而且我们自己的心中也埋藏着同样的罪恶的种子。

我已经说过，我们期望从教导中得到的，不仅仅是一些教条戒律，还应该有更多的东西。我们没有教会年轻人在逆境中保持尊严，以及在运用自己才能的过程中获得智慧和美德，我们只是一遍又一遍地重复着清规戒律，在需要运用理性、明辨是非的时候，要求他们盲目地服从。

举例来说，假使有一位年轻人在初次萌生的、友谊的热情之中，将他所崇拜的人视若神明——这种偏激的热情会对他有什么害处呢？也许美德必须首先要展现在一个具体的人的身上，才能打动一颗年轻的心灵。这个人拥有更加成熟高尚的灵魂，追寻并期许着自己可以达到一种理想的境界，他使年轻人的眼界变得开阔。智者有言：“不爱他所能看见的兄弟之人，怎能爱他没有看到的神？”

年轻人会以种种优秀的品质去美化自己最初崇拜的人，在他们无知（或者更恰当地说应该是缺乏经验）的心灵里，这种感情特别容易发生。随着时间的流逝，当他们发现完美是凡人所不可企及之时，他们会在观念上认识到德行的美好以及智慧的崇高。这时崇拜就会演化成名副其实的友谊，因为它建立在尊重的基础之上。从此这孤独的人将只依赖上帝，往日里那些争强好胜的心思得到了净化，在高贵的灵魂里闪闪发光。但是一个人必须要靠自己的才能和努力来明白这件事情，而这也正是上帝为了补偿我们之前的失望，所赐下的果实！因为上帝总是乐于散布欢乐，乐于怜悯那些正在学着认识他的弱小生灵，他所赐予的良好习性绝不会是磨人的梦幻。

如此我们的生命之树方可生机勃勃地生长——我们本也不该强求青春的优美就能涵盖一生的全部美好，而应当耐心地等待年轻人能够深深地扎根于生活，终于无惧风雨。当一个人在富有尊严地、慢慢地向着完美蜕变时，我们会对他少一丝敬意吗？同理，我们身边的一切事物都在不断演化，当我们发现了人生那令人失望的一面，以至于几乎对生命本身感到厌倦，当我们自然而然地发现世间万事终将成空，我们就接近了生命那不令人欢愉的另一面。充满活力与希望的日子结束了，在生命的最初阶段里所拥有的扩展智能的机会也将很快地成为过去。在这样的境况之下，或者是在更早的阶段，人们通过历练认识到了人生的虚无，这是非常有益的，因为生命本来如此。与这虔诚和经验所孕育出的高贵果实相比，当下这种让一个脆弱的年轻人直面人类的愚昧与罪恶的做法实在很难称得上是明智之举，他们本来应该在见识这些之前先得到审慎指导，以免于让他们的良心遗失在生活之中。

我要冒险提出一个看似矛盾的说法，并且毫无保留地就此发表意见：如果人生来只是为了走过从生到死的一个轮回，那么明智的选择是做所有那些可以预见到会让人快活的事情。因此最明智的做法是在所有事情上都保持节制。酒色之徒虽然既不会去培养自己的理性也不会在乎心灵的纯洁，却会谨慎地将享乐维持在一定限度。如果我们终有一死，谨慎就是真智慧，或者说得更直白些，从一生的角度来考虑，谨慎才能带来最大程度的欢愉，而那些不能便利人们生活的知识，则都是祸害。

那么，我们为什么要努力学习而损害了自己的健康呢？追求智慧所带来的高尚的快乐，能抵偿得了随之而来的疲惫吗？更不要说，在研究过程中所无法避免的那些疑虑与失望了。每种研究的终点都是空虚和烦恼：我们特别想要钻研的那些事情，就像奔跑时所见的地平线一样可望而不可即。相反，像孩子一样无知的愚人们，却总是猜想只要一直走下去，最终他们总会抵达那天地相接之处。虽然研究难免带来失落，但是头脑在训练中变得更加强大，理性的翅膀引领着它不断地从表象中追索那隐藏的本质，也许在未来的生命里它就能有足够的力量去理解这个此时如此令其焦虑的问题。

生命中的激情就像风一样，对于一个谨慎的人来说，即使不是有害的，也无甚益处。可是若不思考，人类便与行尸走肉无异，不过能在死后营养一株菜、增色一朵花而已。感官的欲望反映了我们每一种肉体的需求，为我们提供更加温和与持久的欢愉。灵魂的力量在这方面没什么用处，反而可能会影响我们本能的享受——可是清醒的尊严会让我们以拥有这力量为荣。这也证明了生命本来就是一个学习的过程，我们都还幼稚，但我们不应因此而放弃唯一值得期待的希望。因此，我的意思是说，我们应该对于期望教育所达成的成果有一个清晰的认识，因为很多声称相信灵魂不朽的人，他们的行为与他们声称的信条是相互矛盾的。

如果我们以安逸顺遂为人生第一要务，未来的一切都交给命运去安排，那么让孩子们早点知道人性的弱点确实是比较明智的安排。你固然无意让他成为英柯，但也别幻想他会遵从法律之外的道德准则，他的心里很早就种下了人性卑劣的观点，他也不认为有必要比一般标准做得更好。他可能不会做什么罪大恶极的事情，因为老实规矩是最好的策略，但他也不会想去追求什么伟大的美德。作家和艺术家的例子会证明这个观点。

因此我必须要冒险怀疑一下：那些被认为是道德准则的规则，是否只是一些通过书本冷漠地观察人类的人所做出的教条式的规定？我的观点和他们恰恰相反，我认为对激情的控制并不总是明智的。我们应该看到，男性之所以比女性具有更高超的见解和更加坚毅的品格的原因之一，无疑就是因为在面对强烈的激情时，他们有更自由的处理空间，并且他们经常会行差踏错，可这反而扩展了他们的视野。他们也许应该感谢自己的激情，虽然这激情是被一些对生命的错误观点所激发出来的，但是却让他们得以超越安全舒适的境界，通过践行自己的理性而建立起来一些稳固的原则。但是，如果在生命开启之初，我们就清晰地展望到了未来的图景，看穿了所有事物的本质，我们怎能还有足够强大的激情去发展我们的才能呢？

现在，让我来从高处纵览这个世界，剥除覆盖其上的一切虚幻而令人迷惑的美好表象。我清晰地看到世界的本来面目，我的心宁静如水。我就像是在一夜安睡之后，看着晨间迷雾渐渐散去，默默地显露出美丽的自然景象一样，安静地看着世界的真相渐渐地在我眼前展开。

现在世界在我眼中是什么样的呢？我边揉着眼睛边想，我是刚刚从一个逼真的梦境里醒来吗？

我看见人类的儿女正在焦虑地空耗心智去追逐虚幻的东西，以满足他们那错置的激情——如果他们沉溺于这种盲目的情绪，过分听信那些谎言的指引，那么他们就不会有意愿想要成为更加明智的人，因而也无从在想象力的帮助之下过上另一种不同的生活，他们同样深陷于对一些虚幻而短暂的欢愉的追逐，无力摆脱。

从这个角度来看，把整个世界想象成一个每天都在上演着取悦上等人们的舞台剧的舞台，也就没什么奇怪的了。野心勃勃的人们为了追求一个幻影而耗尽自己，或者因为“在炮口之中求取浮名”而粉身碎骨，不过是供上等人们消遣而已：在人已经失去意识的时候，无论是被狂风卷上九天还是随暴雨坠落尘埃，都已经无关紧要了。要是那些上等人发了善心，为了帮助那野心勃勃的人开阔眼界，指给他看通向巅峰的道路密布荆棘，如流沙般越向上挣扎越向下陷，让他在几乎抓住幻影之时放弃希望，那么，虽然在他内心里，也知道自己无力挽住逝水，可是他难道能离开这个舞台，将取悦上等人的机会留待他人，转而去追求他自己的人生吗？我们就是这样成为了希望与恐惧的奴隶啊！

这些野心勃勃的人在追逐虚幻的浮名——那可真是十足地像流星般易逝，如野火般诱人毁灭的同时，也常常谋求一些更加实际的东西。什么！为了获得身后的褒奖，他得要放弃一些极为琐屑的享乐？无论人是否能够不朽，如果人类高贵的激情没有让他能够真正地超拔于他的同类，他心里为何会有这样的斗争呢？

还有爱情！那是多么有趣的景象啊——小丑的把戏都不如这种蠢事逗人。看着一个凡人用种种虚幻的美好去美化另一个凡人，然后对着他自己想象出来的偶像顶礼膜拜——还有比这更可笑的吗？可是，上帝在造人之时已经明确地许给过他这样的欢乐，如果他不能再拥有它，那么上帝所赋予人类的这一属性应该何以附丽，随之而来的又会是怎样严重的后果呢？如果人类只能感受到所谓的肉体之爱，生命的各种意义就能够得到更好的体现了吗？如果人们在看待自己爱慕的对象的时候，没有了想象力的美化，如果他们没有通过思考而赋激情于力量，使它能够帮助人们超脱凡俗的欲望，他们的激情难道不会很快就沦落为肉欲吗？思考是人类高贵的特质，会教会人们爱的完美之所在。而在与激情搏斗的过程中，人们建立起了对自然秩序的热爱，他们的理性在沉思中受到启蒙、得以提升，与此同时，他们的智慧也变得越来越澄明。

在激情的发展过程中所获得的知识，可能同思考的习惯一样有用，虽然这激情所指向的对象以及从中得到的知识可能都非常荒谬。它们看起来原本没有什么区别，是因为全能的上帝将具有主导力量的激情深植在我们心中，才让它们得以区分开来。这种激情让每个人的才能都开始起作用并得到加强，它使得一个婴儿虽然无法知其所以然，但仍能够习得各种经验。

我结束了对世界的纵览，回到我的同胞之间，感觉自己融入了急速翻涌的人潮之中。野心、爱欲、希望、恐惧，发挥着它们一贯的力量，虽然理性告诉我们它们所许诺的最诱人的礼物不过是谎言编织的梦幻而已，但是如果“谨慎”伸出了它冰冷的手，在每一种强烈的感情沉淀为性格特质或形成行为习惯之前，就将之扼杀，那除了自私的谨慎和仅仅出于本能的理性外，人类还能得到什么？威夫特牧师在作品中刻画了令人作呕的犽猢，和具有哲人眼光的、乏味的慧骃，读过之后，我们能不觉得扼杀激情或使人安于现状的举动都纯属徒劳吗？

年轻人一定要行动，因为如果他们有老人家的经验，就更适合走向死亡而非继续活着。虽然年轻人的美德，更多地还是停留在脑海而不是心灵里，也无法创造出什么伟大的事迹，而他们为生活在这个世界上而准备的理性，尽管在进行着高尚的努力，可也还是配不起太高的赞誉。

此外，要让年轻人对人生有个正确的看法本就是不可能的事情，他必然要与自己的激情进行搏斗，才可以有能力去估计那使人犯罪的、诱惑的力量。刚刚步入生活的人，与即将离开人世的人，他们对生活的认识是如此的不同，因而极少能想到一起，除非年轻人从来没有尝试独立地去发展他们那有待成熟的理性。

当我们听到一些无法无天的犯罪行为——它们让我们被深深地笼罩在邪恶的阴影之下，激起了我们的怒火，但是眼看着他人罪行逐渐加重的人，却会对犯罪者抱有比较同情包容的态度。一个冷漠的人是无法真正地看见这个世界的，我们要融入人类的群体，在对他人的感情做出判断之前先要对他们的情绪感同身受。简短地说，如果我们想在这世上生活下去，并且变得更加明智与幸福，而不是只想着享受生命中美好的一面，那么我们必须要在认识自己的同时也对他人有所了解——而通过其他方式获得的知识，只会让人心肠变硬，也会让他们的理性陷入混乱。

也许有人会说，用这种方式得到知识，代价太过高昂。我只能回答说，我很怀疑有什么知识是可以不经努力与痛苦即可得到的？那些想让他们的孩子免于努力和痛苦的人们，要是看到孩子们变得既不聪明也不善良，可不应该有什么抱怨。他们只想让孩子们变得谨慎小心，而年轻人的谨小慎微，不过是对自己的无知和自私的一种保护手段而已。

我曾经看到，接受过精心教育的年轻人通常会特别地肤浅和自大，在任何方面都不讨人喜欢，因为他们既没有年轻人诚挚的热情，也缺乏老年人冷静的深沉。我无法不把这种不自然的表现主要地归咎于那草率的、揠苗助长式的教育，这种教育教他们自以为是地重复着他们所相信的各种肤浅的观点，也就是说，是他们所接受的精心的教育让他们终生都成为了偏见的奴隶。

在最初的阶段，精神上与体力上的努力都会让人生厌，以至于有很多人宁可让别人来代替他们工作和思考。有一种我经常看到的情况会有助于说明我的观点。当身处一群陌生人或泛泛之交之间的时候，一个才能一般的人要是热切地主张某一种观点，我敢说那观点一般来说都是一种偏见，我对此是有过研究的。这些随声附和之人总是很尊重某一位亲戚或朋友的看法，他们不假思索地便急于转述别人的想法，他们对这些观点的坚持程度，甚至会让最初编造这些想法的人都感到吃惊。

我知道现在有一种推崇偏见的潮流，当任何人敢于直面这些偏见的时候，就算是出于人道的想法，并且有理性相助，他也会被粗鲁地责问，他的先人是不是傻瓜。我要回答：当然不是。各种观点在最初的时候大约都经过斟酌，因此也都有某种理由作为依据。然而，一般来说，这些观点仍然是只在一时一地成立的权宜之计，而不是永远合理的基本原则。陈腐的观念只是因为年深日久而得到表面上的尊重，而当初曾经支撑过它的理由，如今早已不再成立，或者根本已无迹可寻。可是，虽然它们已成为了不合时宜的偏见，却仍然在被懒人们采用着。我们为什么会热爱这些偏见呢，只是因为它们是偏见吗？偏见是一种令人盲目轻信的、顽固的信念，我们在其中无法寻觅理性的踪迹，因为，在任何情况下，只要能为一个观点找到任何的理由，哪怕是犯了判断上的错误，它也不会再成为偏见。如此说来，固守偏见是不是在劝我们与理性为敌呢？这种为偏见张目的辩解（假使它还能算得上是辩解的话），让我想起所谓的“妇人之见”这个粗俗的词语，女性时时声称她们热爱或相信某些事物，原因就是她们热爱或相信它们。

和这种只会做出肯定或否定判断的人进行谈话，是谈不出什么结果来的。在你带着他们来到谈话的出发点之前，你先要回顾那些在偏见仗势横行之前就已存在的基本原则，但是十有八九他们又会泰然自若地打断你，并且告诉你说，那些基本原则是完全错误的，而他们的观点是完全正确的。不仅如此，他们可能还会推断说，你的理性在鼓吹一些错误的主张。他们这样做是因为，人们时常在立场动摇之时，最热衷于维护自己所持有的观点。他们会努力通过说服对手来打消自己的疑虑，当对手的辩驳让他们要再次面对自己那令人痛苦的动摇的时候，他们就会恼火不堪。

事实就是，人们希望从教育中得到它所无法给予的东西。一位明智的家长或者导师，也许可以帮助孩子强健体魄以及磨砺他们获取知识的才能，但是蜜糖是必须要靠自己的劳动才能得到的奖赏。想让一个年轻人通过他人的经验而变得有智慧，几乎就像想通过聊天和参观别人运动就能强身健体是一样的荒唐。很多行为举止被严密关注的孩子，变成了最软弱的人，因为他们的指引者只是向他们的脑海中灌输一些除了权威加持以外便别无依仗的、特定的观念。如果孩子们热爱或者尊崇这些观念，他们的头脑就会被限制在这些观念的框子里，思维的发展也会摇摆不定。在这个例子里，教育的作用只不过像是把花草的触须牵引到一个合适的、可攀附的对象上而已。家长灌输给孩子们一个又一个观念，却不让他们拥有自己的判断力，希望他们按照这些强加的荒谬观点行事，好像那就是他们自己的观点一样；希望当他们真正开始自己的生活时，也要像父母们一样度此一生。家长们没有想过，无论是树木还是人的身体，都要在获得充分成长后才能健康茁壮。

在精神方面，道理也是类似的。在儿童和青年时期，感情和想象塑造了性格的形态。随着年龄的增长，理性让本能中美好的感情变得稳固——直到德行成为理性的坚定选择，而不再只是出于心灵的一时冲动。道德开始具备坚实的基础，足以抵抗激情的风吹雨打。

我希望大家不会误解我这个观点的意思，我认为：除非宗教能够建立在理性的基础之上，否则将无法获得这种凝聚力。如果宗教仅仅是弱者的避难所或者盲目崇信的对象，却并非由个人智识以及对上帝属性的理性思辨中所总结出的行为准则，我们能对它有什么期待？宗教中确实包含着诗意的部分，能够温暖人的感情，激发人的想象，但是这个部分只能让人享受愉悦，却无法帮助人们成为更有道德的生灵。宗教或许可以成为世俗生活的一个替代品，但却不能扩展人的心灵，反而让它更加狭隘。而我们热爱美德，必须应该是因为其本身的崇高完美，如果我们希望自己能达到某种程度的完美，就不要把美德当作一个趋利避害的选择。当人们把关注点从与自己有关的责任转向宗教的空想之时，当他们一心幻想着未来世界的空中楼阁，以补偿他们在现世里的失落之时，他们是不会变成有德行的人的。

生命中的很多美好的景象，都被人们游移不定的世俗智慧所玷污。人们忘记了他们不可能同时侍奉上帝，又聚敛钱财，总想要把这矛盾的东西调和在一起。如果你想让你的儿子成为富有的人，你要选择一条路——如果你只想让他成为有德行的人，你就必须要选择另一条路。但是不要幻想你能将两条路合二为一，那样的话你必将迷失。

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

第六章 论早期观念联想对性格的影响

我批判过的那些作家们所推崇的教育方式会窒息人的活力，如果女性一直接受这种风格的教育，又没有机会在从属的社会地位上重新得回她们那被剥夺的权利，那么她们会满身缺点，又有什么好让人奇怪的？如果考虑到早期的观念联想对于性格具有决定性的影响，那么接受了这样教育的人会轻忽理性，而一心只关注自己的外表，又有什么好奇怪的？

出于以下的考虑，我们可以清楚地看到，积累知识必然会给人带来巨大的好处。我们的观念联想要么是习惯性的，要么是即时性的，而后者似乎在相当大的程度上取决于人们一时的情绪，而非意志。各种观点和事实，一旦进入了我们的脑海，就会留下痕迹以备将来使用，可能在我们人生中的某个阶段，它们会被一些偶发事件所触发，于是我们就会用它们来解释这偶然发生的事情。人的回忆就像闪电一样迅疾，我们能如此快速地用一个想法来解释另一个想法并接受它，这真令人惊异。这指的并不是我们对于真理的快速感知，那种感知是依靠于直觉的，而且发生得如此迅捷，在破解掉阴暗疑团的一刹那便已无法追寻，以至于我们无法对它追根溯源，也无法分辨它到底是我们脑海中已然存在的东西还是新的推理结果。面对这些即时发生的观念联想，我们无能为力，在深思或神游之中，思维的力量发展壮大，在某种程度上，是它在引领着我们所思考的事物自行达成了一个结论。实际上，在我们整理思绪，或者描绘热烈的想象图景的时候，理性会使我们不致迷失，但是那野兽一般的活力和每个人的个性特色，则会使我们的思绪和想象变得丰富多彩。我们简直无力控制着这微妙的、电流般闪过的思绪，即使是理性面对它也无能为力啊！这些幽微难解的思绪似乎正是天才的要素，它令人敏锐明达，并在最大程度上激发出一种可喜的力量，能够将那些令人惊奇、欢喜，或于人有益的思想整合在一起。正是那些拥有活跃思维的人，为他们的同胞提炼出了想象中的图景，经由这些激情澎湃的想象，人们对那些原本会被忽视的事物产生了兴趣。

请允许我解释一下上面的话。大多数人都不具备像诗人一样去观察和感觉事物的能力，他们缺乏想象力，因此不会独自沉思，而是四处去寻找能够刺激他们感知的东西。当作家将自己的幻想呈现出来的时候，人们就能够看到他想象出来的景象，他们觉得这些景象非常有趣，却无力对它们进行甄别。

所以，教育只是为了给具有天才的人提供知识，好让他们的联想变得多姿多彩而与众不同。但是有一种习惯性的观念联想，它会“随着我们的成长而日渐坚实”，并且对于人的道德品质产生非常大的影响，它还会改变我们的心灵，这种影响时常会持续终生。人的想法是如此的易变，却也如此的顽固，以至于在我们成年之前的那段时期，很少能够靠理性来消除那些由偶然事件引发的联想。一个想法会唤起另一个想法，与前一个想法有关的联想和记忆，都作为后来想法的第一印象而被忠实地记录了下来，尤其是在我们没有运用智慧的力量来使自己保持冷静的时候，这些印象就会被精准地唤起。

这种对于第一印象的习惯性的服从，对于女性品格的害处比对于男性品格的害处更大，因为工作和其他需要扎实地运用理性的事务，会帮助男性节制感情，从而打破那些严重违背理性的观念联想。但是女性，从童年起就被塑造为成年妇女，却在应该与学步车永别时又被当成孩子，她们没有足够的心智力量去消除那些节外生枝的联想，只能任它们遮蔽了自己的天性。

女性所有的见闻都在加深印象、唤起情感、建立观念之间的联想，让她们心里时刻想着“女性”应有的品质。对于美丽与优雅的错误观念阻碍了她们四肢的发育，只让她们变得病弱多愁，却没有让她们的体态变得优美。周围的一切迫使她们变得柔弱，无力在观念联想最初形成的时候对它们进行充分的检视，而只能任其发展，这样一来，她们要如何才能获得摆脱这些造作的品质所必需的活力呢？又应该到哪里去找到回归理性的力量，从而摆脱这个压迫着她们、窒息了她们所有的青春希望的体制呢？整个生活环境共同造就了这种令人痛苦的观念联想，它嵌入了她们的思维定式，或者更确切地说是卷入了她们所有的情绪感受之中，而每当她们刚要开始做点儿什么事情的时候，这种观念又会得到加强，因为她们会感受到，只有当她们的举止能够激发起男性的情感的时候，她们才能得到欢乐和权力。此外，所有为了指导她们而专门写作的书籍，全部众口一词，在她们的心里留下了关于性别特质的第一印象。她们在一种比埃及的奴隶制还要糟糕的体制下接受教育，犯下了她们几乎无法避免的错误，为了这个而指责她们既不理智又残忍无情，除非我们假设她们生来就有魄力，可是那却只是极少数人才能拥有的品质。

比如说，人们极尽尖刻地讽刺女性，嘲弄她们只会重复“死记硬背学来的那一套说法”，可是如果考虑到她们所接受的教育，以及她们“最高的美德就是毫不争辩地服从”男人的意志，那么这种情形真是再自然不过了。如果她们不被允许有足够的理性去控制自己的行为——我真不明白为什么要让她们变成这样——那么她们当然要靠死记硬背来学习！当她们把所有的心机都用在了服装搭配上的时候，她们会“热爱穿红制服的军人”真是再自然不过的事情，我对此一点也不感到惊讶。而且，如果蒲柏对于女性性格的总结是正确的话，（他说：“女人在本质上都是荡妇。”）那么我们又有什么理由因为她们寻求同类之人、喜爱浪荡子更甚于明理之士而去苛责她们呢？

浪荡子知道如何激发她们的感情，而理智的男士则谦恭有度，当然就没那么容易影响她们的情感，并且他们和女性很少在思想上有所共鸣，所以也无法通过理性来打动她们的心灵。

不让女性自由地运用理性，却又希望她们在爱好上比男性更加理智，这看起来有些荒谬。男性可曾理智地陷入爱情过？他们掌握着更大的权力和更多的有利条件，可他们什么时候把注意力从女性的外表转向她们的精神世界过？女性则一贯被教导说要关注自己的言行举止，她们只能学到礼仪而不是美德，人们又怎么能期望她们去鄙视自己的毕生所学呢？她们能够敏锐地判断别人的态度，当一位高尚却不善言辞的男士表现得冷淡疏离，并且他的谈话也因为不够机敏风趣或殷勤恭维而显得冷酷乏味的时候，她们又怎能突然得到足够的判断力，去耐心地评判这位男士的学识呢？我们无法评估超越自身理解力的品质和美德的价值，也就是说，要想持续地赞赏或尊重某个人或事物，我们必须至少要对其有一定的了解和好奇心才行。对事物和他人的这种敬重之情，一旦产生可能就会异常深挚。虽然在被依赖者看来，依赖者那缺乏清醒认知的敬慕之情可能是非常有趣的，可他们的爱情却需要一些比这更加有分量的东西才能产生（外表自然是其中的一部分，而且是很大的一部分）。

爱情在很大程度上，是一种专断的情感，它和其他很多随处可见的坏毛病一样，想要以自己的权威统治一切，而不愿服从理性的指引。它通常因一时的美貌和优雅而产生，与作为友情基础的尊重有非常明显的区别。要使爱情更有活力，必须通过某种更加具体的东西来加深它的印象，并且发挥想象力的作用，来造就一个最美、最好的人。

共同的品质会激发共同的感情。男性寻找美貌和温柔顺从的媚笑；女性则被风流倜傥的举止俘获。一位有绅士风度的男士几乎总能得到她们的欢心，她们渴望听到那些空洞的礼貌言辞，而不愿意听到难以理解的理性的声音。而这样的男士也都很聪明，从不会用理性去求爱。说到这些浮华的技能，浪荡子们自然是有优势的，女性对此也能给出自己的意见，因为这正是她们熟知的领域。她们整个生活的基调，就是享乐与放荡，以各种形式表现出来的智慧，以及美德和那庄严的优雅，在她们看来都不可喜，因为它们对于女性和她们那儿戏般的爱情，都是一种束缚，所以她们当然要反抗。除了一些肤浅的东西，她们没有什么品位，因为品位是判断力的产物。所以，她们如何能够发现，真正的美丽和优雅必然要来自于心智的活动？又如何能够指望她们在情人身上看到她们自己都不具备，或者即使具备也极不完善的一些东西？情感上的共鸣，会将人们的心灵联系在一起，并且在他们之间建立起信任，而这种共鸣在女性身上是如此的稀少，以至于它无力引燃爱的火焰，并进而发展出热烈的情感。不，她们做不到这一点，而且我再说一遍：这样的人们所推崇的爱情，其动机必然要比情感的共鸣卑劣得多！

结论很明显：除非女性被引导着运用她们自己的理性，否则她们就不应该因为喜欢浪荡子而受到讥讽。就算她们内心放浪也不应该被如此对待，因为这是她们所受教育的必然后果。她们活着就是为了取悦他人，必然也只能在取悦中找到自己的乐趣和幸福！任何事情，除非我们真心喜爱，否则就无法做好。这虽是老生常谈，却非常正确。

不管怎样，让我们姑且假设，在未来的时代里将会发生一些变革，女性会成为我所衷心期待她们能够成为的人，甚至是爱情也会被赋予更加真实的尊严，并且会在其自身的激情火焰的淬炼之下变得更加纯净，而美德则会让女性的情感真正地优雅起来，她们会对浪荡子心生厌恶，并远离他们。虽然现在女性唯一要做的事情就是感觉，但是到了那个时候，她们除了会有感觉还会有理性，她们就可以轻易地抵御那些肤浅魅力的诱惑，她们很快就会开始轻视感性——那是她们都曾被教会并滥用的一种堕落的恶习——也会轻视放荡之人的淫乱做派。她们会回想起来，自己曾经希望燃起的那种爱火（我必须措辞恰当）都被淫欲消耗殆尽，而过分餍足的欲望已不再能感受任何纯粹质朴的欢乐，必须要有花样繁多的放荡手法才能让它感受到刺激。如果一位高雅的女士，她自然质朴的爱情在男性看来却显得乏味无聊的话，她还能期待从与这类男子的结合中得到什么令她满意的结果呢？关于这种情况，德莱顿是这样描述的：

“对于女人来说，爱情是一种责任。

可是在男人这里，爱情不过是肉欲燃起的一阵风暴，他们轻慢无礼地追寻着的嗜好。”

但是，女性还需要了解一个重大事实，并以它来指导她们的很多行为。在选择丈夫的时候，她们不应该被一些情人的特质迷惑而做出错误的选择——如果那做丈夫的既聪明又正直，他就不会长久地表现得像个情人一样。

如果女性能够获得更加理性的教育，她们便可以对事物形成更为全面的看法。她们会满足于一生只恋爱一次，也会在婚后平和地将激情转化为友谊和温柔的亲密，这是免于幽怨的最好方法。这种亲密的夫妻关系建立在纯洁和平静的感情之上，因而她们不会让无聊的嫉妒妨碍自己履行庄严的人生责任，也不会让它占据她们原本应当用在其他事情上的心思。许多男性都是这样生活的，可是只有极少数的女性也有与他们相同的生活状态。导致这种差异的原因很容易解释，不必扯上性别特质。女性据说是为了男性而被创造出来的，他们过多地占据了女性的思想，而这种联系让女性的所有行为动机都和爱情纠缠在了一起。而且，我再老生常谈地说一句，女性把全部的精力都用来学习如何激起他人的爱慕，或者在实践中练习她们所学到的技能，离开了爱情她们就无法生活。女性在取悦于人上有过度的欲望，这虽然还远谈不上是犯罪，却也实在不够文雅，她们至死都顽强地爱着自己的丈夫——我是说她们满怀欲望地爱着他们——愚蠢地效仿着从情人那里学来的角色，成为了卑贱的求爱者和顺从的奴隶。而责任感和羞耻心会帮助她们限制这种过度的欲望，使它不会超出一定的界限。

具备机智和幻想的男性大多是浪荡子，而幻想就是爱情的养料。这样的男子会点燃人的激情。半数女性，在目前这幼稚的状态下，都会爱慕拉夫雷斯那样的人，一个如此机智、优雅而又英勇的男子。人们不断地灌输给她们这样的原则，她们难道应该因为按此行事而受到责备吗？她们需要一个情人兼保护者：看他跪在她们面前——勇敢的男子臣服于美丽的女性！为了爱情，丈夫应有的美德被抛到一边，深思熟虑被对未来快活的期盼以及热烈的感情所取代，直到他赢得了她的爱情。然而，接下来，那令人愉快的求爱者必然会蜕变为阴郁多疑的暴君，他蔑视她的软弱，他因此而羞辱她，可是那弱点正是他自己一手促成的。或者，假设这浪荡子肯洗心革面，但他也不可能立即摆脱陋习。当一位有才华的男士第一次被自己的情欲所控制，他必然会用感情和品位来粉饰自己的恶行、为自己沉迷于欲望找到一些好看的借口。但是，在新鲜感淡去、感官已经对享乐提不起兴趣来的情况下，好色就是一种无耻的行为了。这些软弱的人就像逃离一群魔鬼一样，不顾一切地想要逃离思考，享乐不过是他们给自己找到的一个借口罢了。呜呼，“美德”二字真非空名，凡百尘世所有之事，竟皆可假汝之名！

一个才华出众的浪荡子，即使是他浪子回头，也不能指望着从他的友情中得到什么安慰。那么在他既缺乏理性又丧失原则的时候，情况又会是怎样的呢？那一定是极其骇人的不幸。习惯会随着时间的流逝而巩固，对于软弱的人来说，要改正它们几乎是不可能的。事实上，改正习惯会让他们非常痛苦，因为他们的心智不足以只在无害的享乐中感到心满意足。这些人就像商人一样，后者从繁忙的工作中退休之后，世界好像就只余一片空白，不安的思绪折磨着他们衰弱的精神，而前者，让他们改正那些习惯就像让商人退休一样痛苦，因为这些习惯原本还能为他们那一潭死水般的心灵带来希望和恐惧的刺激，而改正之后连这些希望和恐惧也将不复存在，他们就完全无事可做了。

如果这就是习惯的力量，如果这就是愚蠢带给我们的束缚，那么我们是应当多么细心地注意，不要在心灵中累积下那些有害的联想。我们还应该同样用心地去培育理性，让那些可怜的生灵远离软弱的依赖状态——即使这种对于理性的无知并不会造成损害。只有对于理性的正确使用能够使我们不依赖一切事物——除了清晰的理性本身——“理性的贡献是真正的自由”。

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

第七章 论谦逊端庄：在广泛意义上的讨论而非仅局限于女性德行的角度

谦逊端庄，那情感与理性的神圣产物，那真正的心灵之美！可否容我不揣冒昧一探你的本质，追溯你那潜藏着的、温和的魅力？你使得人类性格中的每个棱角都变得圆润，也让那些原本只会令人敬而远之的事物变得可爱！你让智慧变得宜人，让格调崇高的美德变得平易可亲，让它们得以与人性融为一体！你在爱情周围散布缥缈的云雾，为它增添欲语还羞的美丽，那羞涩的芳香沁人心脾，让人着迷——你为我调谐出具有理性的说服力的语言，直到我将女性从那华丽的卧床上唤醒，不然她们会在那儿懒散地睡掉自己的生命！

在之前谈到我们的观念联想的时候，我曾指出过两种截然不同的模式。在为“端庄谦逊”下定义的时候，我同样认为应当看到它具有纯净的心性与朴实的性格两个方面，并对它们分别加以认识。前者是源于忠贞，后者则使我们能够对自己有正确的认识，它们虽然与高度的自尊意识相一致，但却绝不是虚荣和傲慢。这个词组中的“谦逊”是指一种清醒的心智状态，它使一个人不会自视过高，而且它与妄自菲薄的自卑也不一样。一个谦逊的人通常有伟大的计划，并且坚持执行，他了解自己的能力，他用成功来证明他的计划是伟大的。弥尔顿曾为了他后来被证明是颇有先见之明的理论而饱受争议，可他并未因为自己发现了这些理论而骄矜；华盛顿将军受命统率美军时，也不曾为此而自大。后者一直都被认为是一个谦逊的人，可他从不自卑，否则他就会犹豫退缩，不敢亲自承担起指挥军队的重任。

谦逊的人坚定，自卑的人怯懦，浮夸的人专横，这就是我观察了许多人之后得到的判断。耶稣谦逊，摩西自卑，彼得浮夸。

我们一方面要将谦逊和自卑区别开来，另一方面也要将端庄和羞怯区别开来。羞怯，实际上与端庄截然不同：最腼腆的小姑娘和最不开化的乡下人，常常会变成最厚颜无耻的人。他们的腼腆仅仅是出于无知而表现出来的、本能的胆怯，因此很快就会变得厚颜自大。

伦敦街头，娼妓遍布，我对她们不知羞耻的行为既感到惋惜又觉得恶心，而这正好可以用来佐证上面的观点。娼妓们满不在乎地嘲弄处女的羞涩，并且以自己的耻辱为荣耀，她们变得比男性更加厚颜放荡——男性虽然一直都很堕落，却也不会明目张胆地宣扬自己好色。这些可怜的人，她们并非是因为坠入风尘才不再端庄，因为端庄是一种美德，而非一种性格特质。不，她们原本不过是因天真而羞怯，当她们不复天真之时，羞怯也就随之永不再来了。而美德则会在心灵中留下影响，即使我们为了欲望而舍弃了它，也仍会对它抱有尊敬之情。

忠贞在德行上唯一的基石，就是纯净的心灵，这是一种真正意义上的美好，它和那些只存在于有教养的人们身上的、高尚的人性有着十分相近的来源。它比天真高贵，它是经过周全思考的决定，而不是无知的羞涩。理性的自制就像保持整洁的习惯一样，除非一个人正在积极地行动着，否则在大部分的时候我们都很难发现它们，但是我们很容易就能将它与质朴的羞涩或荒唐的畏怯区分开，而且，它绝不会与知识相互抵触，它本身就是知识最美好的果实。下面这段文字的作者，对于端庄的理解是多么的无知无识啊！“一位淑女问道：学习现代植物学理论，是否会破坏自己的女性魅力？人们却嘲笑她假装正经实在可笑。可是如果她来问我这个问题，我就会告诉她说：你们不可以学习这些东西”。一本好书里的知识就这样被永远地封存起来了！在阅读此类文章的时候，我曾虔诚地仰望上天，向永生的上帝祷告：天父啊，难道您会因为您的女儿天生的本质，就禁止她在美好的真理中寻找您吗？难道她的灵魂会被极力召唤她朝向您的知识所玷污吗？

我曾经理智地研究过这些问题，我的结论是，那些最大程度地发展了自己的理性的女性，一定也是最端庄的——虽然她们变得仪态安娴，举止上不再呈现出年少时那有趣而迷人的羞涩。

我是这样看的：要想使质朴的端庄从忠贞的美德中自然地流露出来，就要把女性的注意力从那些只会激发情感的事物上转移开来，她们的心灵应当追求人性，而非爱情。如果一位女士将大部分时间用来追求纯粹的智识，并且她的感情也经过以做一个有用的人为目的的、高尚的计划的训练，那么与那些将时间和精力都用在轻松享乐或谋取他人爱慕之心的无知之人相比，她的心灵必然更加纯净。尽管人们通常将恪守礼法的女性称作是端庄的女性，可是行为上的规范并不是端庄。端庄是心灵纯净，是敞开内心感受一切人性的特质，而非将它局限在自私的欲望之中，是常常思索需要调动理性的问题，而非热衷于想象，淳朴的端庄自会为思考增色。

如果一位女士可以在无知的朦胧黑夜中辨认出永生的曙光，感觉到更加光明的一天即将到来，她就会像尊重一座神庙一样，去尊重一个人，因为在那人的身体里深藏着一个可以臻于完善的灵魂。同样，真正的爱情也会在所爱之人的周围渲染出这种神秘的圣洁感，使人们在其所爱之人面前举止异常端庄。这情感是如此的含蓄隽永，以至于爱人之间在彼此接受与回报对方的亲密之时，不但想要避开他人的知觉，甚至连灿烂的阳光都让他们觉得碍眼。他们就像渎神者一样不想引来他人的注意，情愿将自己隐蔽在晦暗的迷雾之中。如果还没有经历过那种温柔的悲愁和高尚的忧郁，那么这样的感情就还不能被称为是纯洁的爱情，因为正是那样的情绪让心灵能有一刻安宁下来，静静地感受这神赐予我们的美好情感，享受当下的满足——这才是欢乐的源泉！

我一向喜欢对任何流行的习俗追根溯源。我常常想，人们出于怀旧的心情，所以对于天各一方或已然逝去的朋友的任何东西都怀有感情，由此而产生的对于他人遗留下来的物品的尊重，也被自私的教士们大肆滥用。信仰，或者爱情，都可以让衣物变得像它的主人一样神圣。一位男士是不会把他爱人的东西与一般同类的事物一样看待的。要是他真的对于爱人的手套或便鞋没有一点神圣尊崇的心情的话，那他一定是缺乏想象力。这种微妙的感情也许经不住实证主义的分析，可它却是人类之极乐的由来！爱情像朦胧的魅影滑过眼前，让其他一切都黯然失色，可是一旦我们捉住了那温柔的云雾，它却化为一阵清风，只余下寂寞的空虚，和那紫罗兰香般的甜蜜余味，让我们在记忆里长久地视如拱璧。而我们已经在不知不觉中踏入仙境，即便是在严寒的十一月，也能感受到温暖的春风拂面。

总体而言，女性较男性更加忠贞，而鉴于端庄正是忠贞的产物，所以从某种意义上来看，女性似乎更当得起端庄这一美德。我犹豫再三还是要保留这个“似乎”——因为我怀疑，当人们仅仅只是为了服从世俗观念，而保持行止规矩，脑海中却满是小说家编造出来的卖弄风情与痛失所爱一类的故事的时候，忠贞是否仍然会造就端庄的美德？不仅如此，我还认为，无论是经验还是理性，都倾向于告诉我们，男性应当比女性更加的端庄。原因很简单，他们比女性更多地在运用理性。

但是，说到举止合乎礼法，除了某一类女性之外，女性明显具有优势。厚颜无耻的假殷勤被认为充满男子气概，这让许多男人肆无忌惮地盯着每一位他们遇到的女士，还有什么能比这更恶心？这是对女性的尊重吗？这种放荡的行为显示出他们是多么的堕落，内心又是多么的软弱。我们无从期望在他们身上看到更多的公德与私德，除非是男性和女性都能够变得更加端庄——男性要控制住对于女性的肉体欲望，不再为了证明自己的男性气概而装模作样（更恰当的说法应该是厚颜无耻）——并且，除了在情难自禁之时的亲密，真正地与女性相互尊重。我所指的是对一切个人的尊重——人类彼此之间对于同类的、谦逊的尊重，它既不是淫荡荒谬的假殷勤，也不是身为保护人的傲慢屈尊。

进一步说，要做到端庄谦逊必须发自内心地弃绝内心的放荡，正是它让男性可以镇定自若、毫不脸红地在他的同类面前做出下流的暗示或者说着淫秽的俏皮话，这已经不是如何对待女性的问题了，这根本就是野蛮的行为。把人当作人来尊重，这是任何高尚情感的基础。放纵自己情欲幻想的浪子，能比引人哄笑的下流小丑端庄多少？

这不过是许多例子中的一些，它们都证明了在谦逊端庄上划下性别之分，会对美德和幸福造成致命的伤害。然而，更有甚者，那些由于所受到的教育而成为了感情奴隶的女性——软弱的女性！——却被要求在最难堪的情况下去抵抗她们的感情。诺克斯说：“让女人保持愚昧无知，却又强烈坚持要求她们抵制诱惑，还有比这更荒诞的事情吗？”因此，当美德或者荣誉要求一个人控制情欲，这责任就被扔到了弱者的肩膀上，这与理性和真正的谦逊端庄是背道而驰的。真正的端庄至少会要求男女双方都进行自我克制，更不必说勇敢慷慨本来就被认为是男性的美德，所以他们原本理应在抵制情欲之中承当更多的责任。

与此相类似的，还有卢梭和格雷戈里关于端庄的建议，它们都奇怪地曲解了端庄！这两位男士都希望做妻子的不要去追究自己到底是由于感情还是软弱而投入了自己丈夫的怀抱。如果一位女士让她的丈夫感受到一丝这样的疑惑，那她的行为就是不够端庄的。

让我们从另一个角度来看待这个问题：我对谦逊端庄的缺失深感痛惜，因为这意味着道德的彻底败坏。而这种缺失是由男女两性之间的敌对状态所造成的，沉溺肉欲的男性极力地想要维护这种敌对状态，因为他们认为这是端庄的真谛。可实际上，它却是端庄丧失的根本原因。这些男性没有足够的美德去领略纯洁爱情的乐趣，他们所谓的“端庄”，不过是对肉欲的一个巧妙的粉饰。高尚的男性对于谦逊端庄的理解更深，因此软弱和感性都无法满足他——他寻找的是真正的爱。

还有，当男性夸耀自己征服了女性的时候，他们到底是在夸耀什么？确实，女性这种感性的生物会由于感性做出愚蠢的事情——陷入罪恶，一旦她们的理性苏醒过来，那可怕的、罪孽的代价就会重重地落在她们软弱的肩头。那时候，你这孑然孤苦的人儿啊，将从何处觅得安慰？那本应引导你的理性、在你软弱时支持你的男子，已然背叛了你！在激情的梦幻中，你甘愿随同他徘徊在鲜花盛开的草坪，可是他不但没有保护你，反而诱惑你，引导毫无防备的你走向悬崖。当你从梦中惊醒，将会发现自己有如身在荒野，要独自面对一个冷漠而充满敌意的世界。那个靠着你的软弱完成了征服的男子，他已在追逐下一个征服目标了，可是，对你而言，这将是一生都无法补救的憾事！你那衰弱的精神，还有什么力量可以让消沉的心灵再次振作起来？

但是如果天意真的是要让两性生活在一种敌对状态之下的话，男性也该表现得高贵些，或者让他们听从自尊的召唤，知道那仅仅征服了对方的感性的胜利是卑劣的。真正的征服是得到真爱，而不是出其不意地巧取豪夺——那时，女性就会像埃洛伊萨那样，心甘情愿地为了爱而放弃全世界。我现在不想谈论这种牺牲是否明智或道德，我只是认为这是出于真正的爱的牺牲，而不仅仅只是因为感性，虽然其中也确有这样的成分——可我必须要说，埃洛伊萨是位端庄的女士。此外，在结束这部分讨论的时候，我想说：除非男性变得更加忠贞，否则女性就不会是端庄的。事实上，端庄的女性要去哪里才能找到不会让她们时时感到厌恶的男性呢？两性必须都要培养谦逊端庄的美德，不然它永远都是温室里病态的植物，而伪装的谦逊端庄，则不过是纵欲的遮羞布，只是为了给放荡的享乐添加趣味罢了。

男性也许仍然坚持认为，女性应当比男性更谦逊端庄，然而最热衷于反驳我的观点的那些人，绝对不是冷静的理论家。不，他们是那些富于幻想，并且广受女性欢迎的男性：表面上尊重、内心却瞧不起那些与他们嬉闹的、软弱的女性。他们不甘心放弃那无上的肉欲满足，甚至连用自我克制为他们的享乐添上一点点美德的色彩也做不到。

接下来我再专门从女性的角度来谈谈这个问题。

人们对于端庄谦逊抱有曲解，还将这荒谬的谎言灌输给了孩子，让他们幼小的心灵早早地开始热切幻想着一些按照自然规律来说在身体发育成熟之前他们本不该想到的事情。这些热情的幻想于是自然而然地取代了理性，成了开启孩子们的理解力、塑造他们品性的工具。

我担心女孩子们在保育院和寄宿学校已经开始学坏。尤其是在寄宿学校里，一群女孩同房而宿，还一处沐浴。人们向天真的孩子灌输错误的优雅观念，或过早地让她们对异性抱持警戒，这自然会让她们产生假装正经的想法。我对于孩子们的心灵遭到如此污染而感到遗憾，但是我更担心她们会养成不够优雅或正派的习性，而且，有很多女孩子从她们无知的仆从身上学到了非常下流的把戏，因此这样不加甄别地让她们混杂于一处是很不合适的。

说实话，女性之间的相处总体来说是过分亲密了。狎则生慢，女性之间的亲密已经达到了会让她们做出粗鄙行为的程度了，这常常会给她们的婚姻带来不幸。为何那些看来体面的姊妹、闺中密友，或者是淑女和她们的女仆，会对彼此熟悉到可以忘了一个人对另一个人应有的尊重的程度？在我们出于情感或人道的原因需要而照料病患的时候，那种会使人在令人厌烦的杂务面前退缩的、洁癖般的优雅，是可鄙的。但是，健康的女性为什么要一面鼓吹自己具备非凡的优雅，一面彼此之间又要比男性更加狎昵呢？我永远无法理解她们这种矛盾的言行。

为了使我的建议更加值得尊重，并且不会冒犯那些挑剔的耳朵，我应该热切地建议女孩子们经常沐浴以保持健康和美丽。举例来说，女孩子无论地位高低都应该学会自己沐浴更衣。如果习俗要求她们一定要接受他人的一些协助，那么她们也应该先将那些绝不应在其他人面前完成的部分做完之后，再来请求帮助，因为在他人面前完成这些事情有损人性的尊严。这样做并不是出于端庄的考虑，而是为了维持起码的体面。有些“端庄的”女性很注意不让别人看到她们的双腿，却又同时刻意地表现出这种注意，这种行为既幼稚又不够端庄。

我还要再进一步深入讨论这个问题，我要谴责所有那些男性绝对不会有的、恶劣的习惯。在本应保持沉默的时候，她们却泄露了秘密，而说到清洁，她们沐浴的方式粗鲁地玷污了清洁的含义（当然某些宗教派别也许在这个方面做得有些过分了，特别是犹太教的艾塞尼派，他们将对人的冒犯也都视为是对上帝的冒犯）。有教养的女性怎么会鲁莽地去关注生物体上那些最为不堪入目的部位呢？而且女性如果没有被教导，在这些特定的方面尊重她们自己身为人的本性，那么她们也不会仅仅出于性别的差异，就长久地对自己的丈夫保持尊敬，这难道不是很合理的推论吗？事实上，我总是能看到，女性一旦退去了少女的羞怯，就会按照她们与自己的姊妹或女性友人相处的老习惯来对待自己的丈夫。

此外，由于心智未能得到培育，女性在有需要的时候通常会求助于一种我所谓的“身体的力量”，她们之间的亲密关系就是其中的一个方式。简而言之，女性之间在身心两方面都过于狎昵。她们必须要在彼此之间保留足够体面的隐私空间，因为这正是人格尊严的基础，否则她们的心灵永远不会变得坚强，她们也不会成为谦逊端庄的人。

出于同样的理由，我反对像保育院、寄宿学校或者修道院那样，将许多女性封闭在一起。每当我回想起自己的少年时代，都会感到愤怒：我那时还是个笨拙的乡下姑娘，混迹于一群热衷于恶作剧和粗鲁把戏的女孩子之中，时常成为她们作弄的对象。她们几乎个个都会讲那种语带双关的黄色笑话，能逗得满桌畅饮的人们哄堂大笑。想要让她们的心灵保持纯洁真是徒劳，除非我们能让她们了解各种观点，并且学着对其进行比较，以及从中概括出简单的观念来，这样她们才会有自己的判断力。让理性代替感性，她们才能变得谦逊端庄。

人们也许认为我过分强调保留隐私空间，但它确实会有助于谦逊端庄。如果要我指出哪些优雅的行为可以增进美貌，我会立刻回答：干净整洁和保留隐私空间。很显然，我所说的保留隐私空间与性别无关，我认为它对于两性来说是同等地必要。懒惰的女性常常忽视保留隐私和保持清洁，可是它们其实非常重要，以至于我敢断言，当一个家庭中有数位女性成员居住在一起的时候，如果完全不考虑爱情的因素，那么其中一贯最为珍重保持自己身体的一位，会成为家中男性成员最为尊敬的一员。

当一家亲友在晨起之后相见，他们彼此之间自然会抱持一种温情而又庄重的情感，特别是当他们每个人都在准备开始自己一天的工作的时候。也许有人会觉得这完全是幻想，但是我的心中确实时常油然而生这样的情感。我呼吸着早晨清甜而令人振奋的空气，因为在我挚爱的人们的面容上也看到与我同样的神清气爽而感到快乐。我开心地看着他们一如既往地振奋精神，准备和太阳一道开始新一天的行程。因此，我认为早晨这种充满关爱的问候，要比夜晚时分常见的那种绵绵不绝的温柔对谈更加值得尊敬。不仅如此，有时当我看到一位头天晚上分别时还装束整齐的朋友，在第二天早上却因为赖床而衣冠不整地出现在我面前时，我都会感到不快——如果这种感受还说不上是厌恶的话。

正是这些被人忽略的事情，使家庭成员之间的情感能够保持鲜活。而且，如果两性能够将他们拿来扮美自己（其实不如说败坏自己的形象）的精力，拿出一半来让自己经常保持衣饰整洁的话，就足够让他们在很大程度上保持心灵的纯洁了。可是女性的装扮，只不过能取悦那些假意殷勤的男子罢了，因为真正的爱人，总是会满足于简洁合体的服装。无法令人感觉亲切的装饰是不恰当的，因为爱永远与家庭的主题紧密相随。

总体而言，女性通常是懒惰的，她们周围的每件事也都似乎在驱使她们懒惰。我并没有忘记感性会带动她们变得活跃起来，可是这些努力只能加重罪恶，它们绝不是那种平和渐进的、理智的行为。事实上，她们身心两方面的懒惰都是如此的严重，以至于除非她们能够积极主动地努力增强自己的体质和理性，否则我们根本没有什么理由可以期望在她们身上看到谦逊端庄取代了腼腆羞怯的位置。女性可能会认为假作端庄是精明的做法，而且只在盛大场合中才为自己戴上这样美丽的面纱。

也许没有一种美德像谦逊端庄这样能与其他美德融洽地融合在一起。它就像是柔和的月光，让那些与它相融合的美德显得更加动人。那些我们所追逐的美德，本来像是在地平线上一般遥远而壮美，可是在谦逊端庄的光芒照耀之下连那遥不可及的壮美也显得温和可亲起来。再也没有比将额间生有银月印记的戴安娜奉为贞洁女神的诗意传说更加美丽的故事了。有时候我想象着，有一位端庄的古代女子，安静地徘徊在幽僻的地方，凝视着柔和朦胧的地平线，她带着平和的热情，将那银月的光芒温柔地纳入她贞洁的胸怀中，她一定感受到了一种清醒自觉的、尊严的光辉。

信仰基督的女性会出于更加高尚的动机而去激励自己保持贞洁，并且成为谦逊端庄的人，因为她的身体是永生的上帝所在的神殿，而上帝所要求的并不仅仅是仪表上的端庄。上帝的目光洞察她的心灵，并且要她记住，如果她想要成为上帝所青睐的真正的纯洁之人，那么她的贞洁就必须是建立在谦逊端庄的基础之上，而不是出于世故的谨慎才那么做，否则她只不过能换回个好名声而已。而那因美德所建立起来的、人和造物主之间的庄严交流和神圣联系，必然会让我们希望自己能够像上帝一样纯洁！

再对上述观点做出补充说明几乎已是赘述，但我还是要说：在我看来，女性成年之后，变得富有女性气质，不再腼腆羞怯，这种气质让她们赢得了丈夫的欢心，或者不如说是在爱情本该自然而然地让位于友谊之时，仍在强求要他像个情人一样。而这一切，是以牺牲真理为代价的，同样也是不端庄的。一个男子对于自己孩子的母亲所抱有的柔情，将会完美地取代那不知餍足的欲望，而女性如果为了维系这种情欲，而虚伪地对丈夫故作冷淡的话，那么即使她不能算是不够端庄，至少也不够文雅。男女在天性上应当有共通的趣味和情感，只有在缺乏理性为他们的行为把关的时候才会做出野蛮的事情，而检点自己的言行，是人人都应承担的责任，而非只是某一个性别的义务。在这个方面，女性可以放心大胆地顺应自己的天性，一旦她们掌握了知识和人性，爱自然会让她们成为端庄谦逊的人。她们没有必要去学习那一套礼教规矩，因为那些东西既令人厌烦又毫无用处，装腔作势的行为只能蒙蔽肤浅的眼睛，有见识的男性很快就能看穿这些把戏，也瞧不起这样做作的行为。

我们完全不需教导年轻男女以及成年男女如何交往。事实上，我们在绝大部分的时候都对行为举止这个问题过分关注了，以至于很难再找到真正性情朴实的人。其实，只要我们专注于培育每一种美德，使它们能够坚实地扎根于人们的心中，那么人们的行为自然就会优雅起来，因为优雅正是美德的果实与外在表现，他们很快就会克服那种徒有其表的造作行为，因为没有真理作为基石的行为既不合理也不稳固。

我的姐妹们啊，如果你们想成为真正谦逊端庄的人，就必须记住，任何美德都与无知和虚荣水火不容！你们必须有清醒的心智，而这只能通过履行责任、追求知识才能获得。若不如此，你们就只能继续活在这前途莫测、仰赖他人的境况里，只有年轻貌美才会被爱慕！低眉顺眼、娇颜如花、隐忍温文，在它们该出现的时候都是合适的。但是谦逊端庄，作为理性的产物，是无法与那些未经深思熟虑的感性长期共存的。而且，当爱情（哪怕是纯洁的爱情），成为你生活的全部之时，你的心灵会变得过分软弱，无力给谦逊端庄提供一个安静的角落，让它安居于此，与你的天性融为一体。

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

第八章 因性别而决定良好名声对于一个人的重要性会有损于道德

人们一直致力于向女性灌输种种有关于她们言行举止的建议以及如何保持好名声的方法。一直以来，我都认为这些看来冠冕堂皇的东西，其实全是毒药，它们使道德变得僵化而徒有其表。以这种虚妄的好名声来衡量人，必然会让我们做出错误的估计，因为它就像是影子，是长是短都要由太阳升得有多高以及其他许多偶然因素来决定。

朝廷弄臣因何会有那种泰然自若的虚伪行为？毫无疑问，那是因为他需要追随者，所以不得不学会一些在拒绝别人的同时又不使人感到被冒犯的技巧，以变色龙般的手段一边逃避一边给人以希望。他用彬彬有礼的仪态掩盖了真相，丧失了人类与生俱来的真诚与人性，却被称为优雅的绅士。

出于某种臆想出来的必要性，女性同样地学会了这些造作的行为。但是，弄虚作假的人无法逃脱惩罚，老练的伪君子难逃玩火自焚的下场，他们丧失了所谓的常识的智慧，也就是快速洞察一般真理的能力。当真理被有局限性的偏见所遮蔽时，心思单纯的人也许没有足够的能力去发现它，但却可以凭借常识的力量接受真理。大多数人为了免于劳动自己的脑筋，会不假思索地接受别人的观点，这些懒惰的人对于神灵或人类的法则，都只会墨守其字面的意思，而无法领会其精髓。一位我记不起来姓名的作家曾说：“女性不关心那些只有上帝才能看见的事情。”为什么她们就得这样呢？她们被教导说，要畏惧他人的眼光——如果她们可以哄骗她们的阿尔格斯入睡，她们便很少会去思考上帝或者反省自身，因为她们的名声安然无恙，她们只在意自己名声的白璧无瑕，并不关心自己的贞洁以及与之相关的那些美德，而且她们在意名声也不是因为把它当作一种美德，而是为了保持自己在社会上的地位。

要想证实上述说法的真实性，我只需说说已婚女性的私通行为，尤其是上流社会那些按照父母的社会地位缔结下门当户对的婚姻的女性。如果一个天真无邪的女孩成了爱情的俘虏，就算她的心灵并没有像那些在婚姻保护伞下的已婚女性一样被各种阴谋诡计所污染，就算她没有偏废任何责任——除了自我尊重这一点——她也将永远被人轻视。与此相反，私通的已婚女性打破了最为神圣的誓约，她们不但是虚伪而不忠的妻子，也是残酷的母亲。如果丈夫仍然钟情于她，那么她必会用手段来欺骗他，这将使她变成最为可鄙的人。总之，那些她用来保持体面的计谋，会让她的心灵在幼稚和罪恶的骚动中失去所有的力量。而且，就像那些习惯靠甜酒来提神的人一样，她最终都会需要靠私通才能使思维活跃起来，因为她已经无法品位那些没有希望或者恐惧调味的享受。

有些时候，已婚女性的行为甚至比这更加令人不齿。我将举一例说明。

有一名有地位的女性，虽然仍然和丈夫在一起，却因为风流韵事而声名狼藉，再没有谁将她当作一位高贵的女士。她却无所不用其极地羞辱一位可怜胆小的女子，这女子因受邻居一位绅士的引诱而与其结婚，每每想起自己之前的软弱便羞窘不安。其实，这位高贵的女士混淆了美德与名声。我十分相信，她婚前行止规矩且颇为自矜，可是在为了家族利益成婚之后，她便和她的丈夫一样，各自背叛了他们婚姻——所以说，天知道他家那行尸走肉般的、庞大遗产的继承人是从哪里来的！

下面让我们从另一个角度来看这个问题。

我知道很多女性，当她们不再爱自己的丈夫之后，也就不爱其他任何人了。她们忘掉一切家庭责任，让自己完全沉浸于虚荣与消遣之中。不仅如此，她们甚至将本应留给幼弱儿女的钱财也全部挥霍一空。可是她们却以自己声誉清白而自居，好似作为妻子和母亲唯一的责任就是保住一个好名声。此外，也还有一些懒惰的女性，不承担任何个人责任，却仍认为应该得到丈夫的爱情，因为她们为保名声而行为规矩。

意志软弱的人总是安于在形式上履行责任，但是美德却是出于更为淳朴的动机。所以，我希望肤浅的道德家们不要总是将行为举止和外在表现挂在嘴边，因为美德应当建筑在知识的基础之上，否则便会流于乏味的礼节。然而，我们却将看重他人的评价作为女性的首要责任来强调，就像卢梭所宣称的：“好名声就像贞洁一样不可或缺。”他还补充道：“一位男士只要自己行为端正即可安然无虞，这完全取决于他自己，而无须顾忌公众的意见。但是对于女士而言，行为端正只能算是履行了一半责任，因为别人如何看待她，和她实际是怎样的同等重要。所以，女性的教育体系在这方面应当与男性的教育体系刚好相反。他人的意见会葬送男性的美德，但是对于女性而言它却是一顶桂冠。”严格按照逻辑来讲的话，建立在他人意见之上的美德不过是世俗的德行，而且只是那些没有理性的人的德行。即使是站在他人意见的角度上看，我也相信，这些理论家的说法是错误的。

好名声是美德自然而然的产物，可是即使不考虑这一点，我也会重视它。这是因为，女性一旦犯错，即使改邪归正也不可能重获尊重，可是男性即使是行为恶劣放纵却仍然能保有一个好名声——我认为这是女性堕落的一大根源，我为此而深感痛心。所以女性自然会竭力留住她们一旦失去便永远不可能再得到的东西，直到这种担心压倒了其他一切顾虑，贞洁的好名声成了她们唯一需要的东西。可是，无知之人的谨小慎微是没用的。无论是宗教还是美德，当它们根植于心的时候，都不需要这种对于形式的无聊关注。总的来说，如果动机是纯洁的，行为必然也是端正的。

我要引述一位非常值得尊重的权威人士的话来支持我的观点，一位冷静的理论家的权威之言虽然不是金科玉律，但应当有足够的分量引发人们的思考。斯密博士在谈论道德的一般准则时曾说：“由于一些非常偶然并且不幸的原因，一位好人也许会被怀疑做了一件他根本不可能去做的恶事，并且因此而在余生里极不公平地受到人们的厌恶和反感。因为这种意外，他可以说是失去了一切，尽管他既诚实又富有正义感。这就像是一个谨慎小心的人，无论他是多么的顾虑周全，也难免会死于地震和洪水。前者也许比后者更为少见，然而也更加违背常理。但我们仍然可以肯定的是，实践真理、正义和人道是达成美德主要目的的可靠而万无一失的方法，而美德的主要目的就是获得与我们一起生活的人们的信任和爱。一个人的某个行为也许很容易被误解，但是误解其行为一般导向的事情几乎不可能发生。一个清白的人也许会被误解为犯了错，但是这种事情很少发生。相反，如果一个人已经给我们留下了清白正直的印象，那么即使是有非常有力的推论可以认为他犯了错误，我们也会常常去赦免他真正犯下的错误。”

我非常同意这位作家的观点，因为我确实相信，不论男女，很少有人会因为没有犯过的错误而被鄙视。我说的不是那种一时的诬蔑，一时的污蔑就如同十一月的浓雾笼罩伦敦，浓雾在白昼到来前会逐渐散去，一时的污蔑也不会永远遮蔽一个人的品格。我只是主张，大多数人的日常行为都能够真实地反映出他们的性格。明朗的日光一天天照耀，时间会洗去那些加诸于清白人身上的无知猜测或恶毒谣传。误解会让人的名声一时蒙尘，但是往往乌云散尽，错误就会暴露出来。

无疑，许多人在许多方面都获得了严格来说比实际应得的更好的名声，这就像是在各种赛跑中，坚持不懈通常便会达到目标。那些只为了好名声这样微不足道的奖励而努力的人，就像是为了被看见而在街角祈祷的法利赛人一样，会得到他们所寻求的奖赏，因为人是无法透视他人的内心的！不过，当一个人不考虑旁观者，只沿着正直的道路前进的时候，一般而言，那因他善行而自然得来的好名声会更加真实、更加稳定。

当一个善良的人得不到人间的公正而必须诉诸于上帝的时候，他确实要经受很多考验。在哀哭公正的哭泣与嫉妒者的嘘声中，他要在心中为自己建立一个避难所，直到谣言散去，并且，这种不应承受的谴责可能会像箭矢一样刺伤一颗无辜柔软的心灵，令它承受许多悲伤。可是，这些都是超出常规的例外情况，而人类的行为应当受到这些常规的规范。描绘太阳系主要行星运行的天文测算体系是稳固的，彗星的离心轨道从来都不能对它造成影响。

我要大胆地断言，当一个人成年以后，除去上述所提到的超出常规的例外情况，人们对他品格的总体评价是公正的。我不是说，一个谨慎世故、只具备消极的美德与品性之人的声誉就不会比一个更加明智正直的人更好。不仅如此，我还从经验里得到这样的结论：当两个人的德行几乎相等的时候，那个拥有消极性格的人通常会得到大多数人的喜爱，而另一位则会在私生活中赢得更多朋友。可是，在伟大的人们身上，性格里的高峰和山谷、云雾与阳光都清晰分明，虽然这会给心怀嫉妒的人留下更好的攻击目标，可是真正的品格即使是被软弱的感情或者精巧的谎言所遮蔽，也早晚会显露出它真正的本色。

这种想要保持好来之不易的好名声的心理，就留给有判断力的人去分析吧，我不会对它做出明确的评断。但是我担心，由于人们将注意力由道德的实质转向其表象，女性群体的道德会被悄然削弱。我们就这样将一件简单的事情变得异常复杂。不仅如此，美德本身有时和它的表象还会互相矛盾。如果卢克丽霞之死是为保护贞洁，而非维护声誉，我们也许永远都不会知道她。如果我们扪心自问真正能够对自己给出好的评价，那么一般而言我们也会得到世人的尊重。但是如果我们渴望更高的成就以及更多的收获，那么我们就不能仅仅像其他人旁观我们一样地去看待自己，就算有人巧舌如簧地辩称他人的观感就是我们道德观的基础也不行。因为旁观者都带有他们所处时代与国家的局限，除此之外，他们自己本身也带有偏见。我们应当尽可能地尝试像上帝看待我们那样地去审视自己，上帝会看到导致我们每个行动的前提思想，他的判决从不脱离永恒的公正法则。他所有的判决都是正义而慈悲的！

谦卑的心灵希望得到上帝的喜爱，他们感觉到上帝的存在，默默地审视自己的行为，这样的人很少会对自己的品德形成非常错误的看法。在自我反省的静默时刻，我们会敬畏地祈求被触犯的正义之神的宽恕，以虔诚崇敬的纯洁敬畏去确认那将人类与神明联系在一起的纽带，是它让我们的心灵得以开阔却又不会激起任何情绪的骚动。在这样庄严的时刻，人们会发现恶行的种子，就像爪哇树一样散布着有毒的气体，暗藏着死亡的气息！人们察觉了这潜藏的恶行，却并不感到憎恶，因为他们感受到自己与同胞之间爱的纽带，他们热切地想要从同胞与自己的天性中找到所有能够减轻这些愚蠢恶行罪责的借口。他们也许会说，如果我通过运用自己的理性，在艰难困苦中得到了提升，找到自己心中深藏的毒蛇之卵，并且费尽心力地消灭了它，那么我能不同情那些没有这样力量的人，以及那些无意中让蛇卵得以孵化为狡猾的毒蛇，乃至被它的毒素污染了生命之河的人吗？当我知觉到自己隐秘的罪过，我能够抛下自己的同胞，冷漠地看着他们坠入张口等待着吞噬他们的、毁灭的深渊吗？不！我不能！我那备受煎熬的心像要窒息了一样不安地呐喊着——我也是一个人！我也有罪过，只是也许避过了旁人的眼睛，这罪过让我拜倒在上帝面前的尘埃里，在万籁俱寂的时刻响亮地告诉我说，我与我的同胞由同样的泥土所造，也呼吸着同样的空气。就这样，在谦卑中自然而然地产生了人性，人性与爱共同结成的纽带在各种变动中将人们的心联系在了一起。

这种同情心还会进一步地扩展，直到一个人在那些原本还不足以让他内心信服的论证中都找到了力量，他对此感到满意，他愉快地用最公正的眼光来看待自己，看待那些诱人步入歧途的原因，他很高兴能够为人类所有的错误找到一些原因，虽然在此之前，他就已相信上帝的光芒普照众生。这样做虽然看起来像是在与堕落握手妥协，可实际上他是一只脚踏在地上，另一只脚大步地跨入了天堂，这意味着他具有了与高尚天性结缘的资格。没有人觉察到，美德在这个美好的时刻散发出温暖的芳香，纯洁宜人的清泉突然喷涌而出，滋润了干渴的土壤，明媚的绿色覆满大地。这就是那纯洁得看不到罪恶的眼睛在一派喜乐中所看到的充满生命力的草原！而我的情绪变得松弛，我必须静静地沉溺于这些深思所带来的幻想之中，无法描述那些令我的灵魂得到安宁的情感。我看着渐渐升起的太阳，看着蒙蒙细雨透过近旁树丛的叶子，那雨丝似乎也洒落在我疲倦而宁静的心中，让我那曾被激情点燃的心灵在理性的力量下变得驯服宁静。

如果我们没有致力于向女性灌输，她们所有的责任就是要时时保持性格可人、仪表光鲜；如果我们没有总是用规范行为和保护名声的规则，去替代道德责任，那么我就无须将我整部作品的主线沿着这个问题铺展开来。可我们一说到重视名声，就会把注意力集中到贞洁这一美德之上。只要一位女性的荣誉（如此称呼真是可笑）不受损害，她就可以不用承担任何社会责任。不仅如此，就算她在赌博和挥霍之中毁掉了她的整个家庭，她仍然可以厚颜无耻地站在人前——因为她是一个真正体面的女人！

麦考莱夫人曾经有过公正的评论，她说：“只有一种错误，体面的女人一旦犯了就必然要承担责罚。”她还公正而且富有人情味儿地补充道：“这导致人们形成了一种陈腐而愚蠢的观点，认为一位女性在贞洁上所犯下的最初的错误，具有令其品格堕落的绝大力量。可是造物主不会创造出如此脆弱的生灵。人类的心灵，远不是那样容易就可以被摧毁，而且就算面临着所处环境及所受教育等种种不利因素，女性也很少全然地自甘堕落，除非她们被其他女人的刻毒仇恨给逼入了绝境。”

但是，女性有多看重贞洁的名誉，男性就有多么轻视它，而这两种极端的态度，对道德有着同等的破坏性。

男性确实比女性更容易被欲望左右，并且他们的欲望更加堕落，因为他们纵欲无度、为求欲望的满足不择手段。奢侈的生活让他们食不厌精，体质因此而遭到了破坏。他们暴饮暴食，非常粗鲁地在旁人面前不知节制地大吃大喝，过后又为此必然会引发肚腹饱胀而叫苦不迭，他们哪里还懂得什么是得体的举止。有些女性，尤其是法国女性，在这个方面也已经忘记了体面，她们面不改色地谈论着自己消化不良的症状。真希望能禁止懒惰的人们用财富的肥沃土壤喂养出食腐的蛆虫，那样我们就不会再因这种野蛮的放纵行为而感到厌烦。

我认为，关于行为举止应该有一条能够统率所有其他规则的总规则，这规则也很简单，就是要对他人抱有习惯性的尊重，这样我们就不会因为一时的放纵而令同胞感到厌烦。许多已婚女性和一些稍微上了一些年纪的人都很懒惰，这并不光彩，时常会让人犯下不够体面的罪过。虽然她们都相信外貌是连接两性的纽带，可她们为什么又常常就是因为懒惰或者沉溺于某种无聊的消遣而忽视外貌，而令男性反感呢？

两性皆陷入了因欲望而导致的堕落，这会带来更多恶劣的后果。人的天性必然是其品位的标杆、欲望的准绳——可是这些放荡的人是多么粗鲁地冒犯了人类的天性啊！我们且不谈高尚的爱情，使欲望得到满足是人类种族繁衍所必须要遵守的自然规则，人类的天性在这一方面的表现与其他一切方面一样，这提升了欲望的重要性，并在其中掺入了一些精神和情感的因素。亲子之情与单纯的动物本能夹杂在一起，让这本能变得高贵。男性和女性为了孩子而时常相聚，因为对于孩子的共同的爱，而激发出了他们对于彼此的关心和爱慕。所以女性必然要起承担一些比梳妆打扮更高贵的责任，她们不会再满足于成为肉体欲望的奴隶——而这恰恰是当前相当一部分女性的真实处境，确切地说，她们成为了所有浪荡男子皆可亲近的人。

也许有人会说，这种罪过虽然罪大恶极，可是它毕竟只会影响那一部分犯错的女性——而她们的错误正可以拯救其他的女性。但是，这种以少数人的罪恶来保全多数人利益的说法，和其他许多错误的断言一样，可以很容易被证明是不正确的，而且，这种说法的害处还不止于此，那些比较忠贞的女性，她们的道德品质和心灵的安宁都因为这些犯错的女性的行为而遭到了伤害，因为她们无法原谅那些罪恶，她们坚持认为是这些有罪的女性使用手段勾引了她们的丈夫、诱惑她们的儿子堕落，还在某种程度上迫使她们自己（希望端庄的女士们不要因此而感到惊讶）也扮演起相似的角色。所以我要大胆地断言，女性所有的弱点，连同我之前所谈到的她们的堕落，都有一个同样的重要原因——男性不够贞洁。

放纵的问题是如此的普遍，以至于人们堕落到只有靠荒淫的刺激才能激发欲望的地步。他们忘掉了天性中的亲子之爱，只剩下美色时时占满他们的整个脑海。放荡的人们常常变得耽于美色，时刻都追寻着女性的柔媚。他们还进一步地追求比女性的柔媚更加销魂的乐趣。在意大利和葡萄牙，男性出入一些充斥着下流人群的招待会，去寻找比那些身娇体弱的女性更加令他们赞叹的东西。

为了满足男性的这种嗜好，女性逐渐变得放荡，虽然程度有所不同，可是她们都放纵自己与毫无感情的男性发生关系，这令男性和女性都变得堕落，男性的趣味也因此而败坏，而女性则无论阶级，都自然而然地改变自己的行为以适应男性的趣味，以供自己获取欢愉和权力。女性因此而在身心两个方面都变得比她们原本的状态还要软弱。她们来到世间的第一要务就是养育子女，成为母亲是她们人生的首要责任，可是她们现在根本没有足够的力量去履行这个职责。亲子之情是人类天性中高贵的本能，可是她们却为了放荡的享乐而打掉胎儿或者遗弃婴儿。人的各种天性都应得到尊重，那些破坏自然法则的人，很少能够逃避惩罚。那些软弱的女性特别能引起好色之徒的注意，她们虽然可能怀孕，但却不适合做母亲。富有的浪荡子任意与女子厮混，四处传播堕落和不幸，当他需要延续自己的血脉时，他的妻子只能给他一个继承了双亲弱点的、发育不全的后代。

人们在对比现代的人道主义和远古荒时代的野蛮习俗时，非常重视远古时代父母把不能养育的婴儿遗弃于野外的野蛮风俗。然而那些对此做出控诉的、感情丰富的男性，也许他们混乱的男女关系正在造成破坏性的不育和流毒甚广的无耻风尚。我想造物主必然从来没有想要让女性为了满足欲望，而败坏他之所以使人类具有欲望的真正的目的吧。

我在前面曾经说过，男性应该抚养被他们诱惑的女性。这是矫正女性行为的一种方法，可以消除那种对人口和道德有着同样破坏力的恶习。还有另外一个同样明显的方法，那就是让女性的注意力转移到贞洁这个真正的美德上来。如果一位女士一面对好色之徒笑面相迎，一面又对他那无法无天的欲望之下的受害者以及她们愚蠢的行为表示轻蔑，那么就算她的名声洁白如雪，从端庄的角度来看，她也并不值得尊重。

此外，当她着意精心地装扮自己的容貌，只是为了引来男性的关注，以及激起男性仰慕的感叹以及无聊的崇拜（人们把这称作纯洁无邪的风流），那么她自认为有多么纯洁，实际上就有多么愚蠢。如果女性是真正地尊敬美德本身，她们就不会想要用虚荣来弥补她们为了保存名誉而必须做出的自我克制，也不会与那些蔑视名誉的男性来往。

无论是变坏还是变好，两性都彼此互相影响。我认为这是一条无可争辩的真理，并且可以将之推广到一切美德的范畴。忠贞、端庄、公德心，以及所有作为社会公德与幸福基石的那些高贵的美德，是所有人类都应该了解和发展的，否则要培养这些美德就是空谈。想要避免那些邪恶或者懒惰的人通过将某些神圣的职责归类为是“女性的责任”，来为自己没能履行它们而找借口，比较聪明的做法是让大家知道，造物主没有让男性和女性遵从不同的美德，那些放荡的男子，败坏了自己的身体，又使得女性不孕，他们因是男子而免于受到专门为女性而造的罪名的指责，可实际上他们的行为双重地违背了造物主的意旨。这还只是生理上的后果，在道德上它还将导致更加严重的后果：当公民、丈夫、妻子、父亲、母亲以及一家之主的责任都沦为寻求私利的纽带之时，道德已然名存实亡。

如此一来，哲学家如何还能期望可以建立公德？公德必须由私德来培养，否则它就会像女性小心保护名声、男性谨慎维护荣誉那样变成一种虚假的情感。这种感情的存在通常缺乏美德以及高尚品性的支持——对于高尚的品性而言，习惯性地违背某一项责任都是对整体道德法则的破坏。

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

第九章 论不合理的社会差异所造成的有害影响

对于财产的尊崇，像是一眼被毒素污染的泉水，是大多数罪行与恶习产生的源头，也让这个世界变得在有思想的人看来尽是一派荒芜。就在这最文明的社会里，有毒的虫蛇深藏在繁茂的草木之中；沉闷的空气滋生了骄奢淫逸的风气，让所有良好的天性在发展成为美德之前就失去了生机。

一个阶级压迫另一个阶级，因为所有人都想要依靠财产来得到他人的尊重——一旦获得了财产，就能得到本应只有天赋和美德才配得到的尊敬。那些富有的人，无视人类与生俱来的责任，却被神化尊崇。各种仪式仿若一层轻纱，使宗教与道德分离开来，而人们竟然还感到奇怪，为什么这世界会变成一个货真价实的、骗子和暴君的堡垒。

俗话说得好，恶魔专门使唤懒人。除了积久渐成的懒惰闲散之外，世袭的财富和头衔还能带来什么呢？这是因为，人只有不断磨炼自己的天赋才能真正地掌握和善用它，可是除非有某种必要的理由，否则人们是不会开始使用自己的才能的。同样，人们也必须通过履行相关的责任，才能获得美德，但是，有些人被奉承者的恭维所蒙蔽，失去了人性，因而无法认识到这些神圣职责的重要意义。社会必须更加平等，否则道德将无处立足。平等符合美德的要求，可是即使是它矗立于岩石之上，如果占人类半数的女性生来便被束缚在那岩石的底层，那么这种平等也不会稳固，因为女性的无知和骄傲会不断地侵蚀着它的根基。除非女性在某种程度上独立于男性，否则我们就不能指望她们能够富有美德，而且，我们也不能指望她们能够在天然的情感的驱使之下成为好妻子和好母亲。当她们完全依附于自己的丈夫，她们就会变得狡猾、卑鄙和自私，而那些满足于奉承者摇尾乞怜的爱情的男性也不会有多么细腻的感情，因为爱情是买不来的，不管怎么说，爱情那柔软的翅膀如果没有得到同样的爱情的回应，立刻就会失去力量。当男性因为拥有财富而变得无能，而女性则可以说是靠自己的美貌来生存的时候，我们又怎能指望他们会去履行那些需要努力与克己的责任呢，即使履行那些责任会让他们变得更加高尚？世袭的财产让人们变得老于世故，那些世袭制的可怜的受害者（如果我可以这么说的话），生来就被财产束缚住了手脚，很少再去发挥他们身心两方面的天赋。他们只通过财富这一媒介来看待万事万物，而这个媒介本身是有问题的，所以他们无法了解真正的美德和幸福是由什么组成的。当一个人的眼前被挂上了帷幕，那么他看到的东西必然是不真实的，他带着面具阔步前行，拖着蠢笨乏力的身体辗转于各种浪荡的场合，他的眼睛茫然四顾，明白无误地告诉我们他根本心不在焉。

我的结论是，每个人都或多或少地想要得到同侪的认可，得到这种认可的唯一方式应该是履行自己的职责。可我们的社会没有按照能够让男性和女性各司其职的方式来良好地组织起来，也没有使履行职责成为人们得到认可的唯一方式。结果，对财富和美貌的尊崇，就像一阵真正的东北风，吹败了爱情和美德的娇嫩花朵。造物主英明地将爱情与责任关联在一起，让履行责任的辛劳变得甜蜜，让使用理性的人充满生机，那是只有心灵才能赋予的力量。但是，当人们并未履行与爱情相关的责任，而仅仅只是将它作为一种可以用来彰显自己具有某种品质的合适的表征的话，那么爱情就不过是一种为了将罪过与愚行妆点成美德与真理而不得不表现出来的虚幻意。

要证明我的观点，我们只需要看看，当一位女士因为她的美貌而受到爱慕并沉迷于此，以至于忽略了履行她自己作为母亲的必要责任之时，她放弃了培养既能让她成为有用的人又能让她幸福的爱情，这是她对自己的犯罪。我所说的真正的幸福，是指在当今不完美的状态下可以得到的所有满足和正当的愉快，它一定是从有节制的爱情中产生的，而爱情包含着责任。男性一味地鼓励女性取悦他们自己，却没有意识到这种行为会给她们带来痛苦，也让她们变得软弱，也没有考虑到让女性牺牲一生的幸福和尊严，去换取撩人的美貌，会使造物主所赋予女性的责任与人类社会所赋予女性的责任相互对立，而这二者本应是和谐一致的。

如果一个丈夫看到妻子哺乳孩子时，不会比看到那些最荒淫的行为时感到更多的快乐，那么他如果不是由于早年的放纵而是丧失了人性，就是内心冷酷。可是富有的女性却放弃了哺乳这一能够巩固婚姻、将尊重与爱恋的回忆结合在一起的天然纽带。为了保持她们的美貌，并且留住那顶能让她们在短短的时间里可以号令异性的冠冕，她们忽略了要在丈夫的心中铭刻下自己的印象——当他们鬓发染雪情怀不再，这种印象甚至会比她少女时的娇美更令他温柔萦怀。一位理智又慈爱的女士所具有的母性的关怀是非常引人注目的。做父亲的善尽了自己庄严的责任，使母亲和孩子得到关爱，而她则以身为母亲的高尚尊严来回报，这不仅令人尊敬，更是一副美丽的画面。我承认我这样的感受确实少见，可是我看腻了乏味的富丽堂皇和卑躬屈膝的礼节，厌倦了以繁冗的仪式取代家庭成员之间的情感，我也尽量避免让自己看到这样做作的场景，我会转向其他的景致来解放自己的双眼，比如看看自然地散布在田野里的清新绿色。然后，我又愉快地看到一位母亲哺育着她的孩子，履行她应尽的责任，也许只有一位仆人代她完成部分辛苦的家务劳动。我看到她将自己和孩子都打扮得干净整齐，等待晚归而疲惫的丈夫，好让他一到家就能看到微笑的婴儿和干净的家。我的心也混在那一家人中间，当那熟悉的脚步声带来一阵欢乐的喧闹，它也因为那充满了共鸣的感情而怦怦地跳动。

我的仁爱之心被这淳朴的图画所满足，我认为这样的一对夫妻，他们各自善尽了自己的责任，彼此对于对方都必不可少却又相互独立，他们拥有了生活所能给予的一切。当他们有了足够的积蓄可以摆脱困窘的贫困，不需要仔细计算每一分开销的后果的时候，他们也就不必再把心思都放在冷冰冰的经济问题上，不会再因此而使自己的身心和情感受到限制。我想说，我的想法其实也很世俗，我不知道他们还需要再拥有一些什么东西，才会成为这世上最幸福以及最受尊敬的人，也许是一些可以为社交谈话增添变化与趣味的文学品位，也许是有些余钱可以接济贫苦和购买书籍。当人们的心灵因为同情他人而得以开阔，当他们积极地想要做一些有益的事情的时候，要是心里还有个一本正经的小人儿在时时掣肘，一边制止他们把手伸进自己空空如也的钱包，一边低声地说着一些谨慎乃正义之第一要务的大道理的话，那可真是够烦人的。

财产和世袭的封号会败坏人的品性，而女性如果受到它们的影响，会比男性更加严重地被束缚并变得品性败坏，因为男性还可以通过参军或从政来锻炼他们的才能。

我敢说，当军人们一丝不苟地维持着欧洲的力量均衡，特别用心地警戒着阴冷荒僻的北方地区以及阳光海岸地带的时候，他们至多可以收获虚荣的浮名。一个公民像法布里西乌斯或者华盛顿那样为国家奋斗，然后功成身退归隐田园，以一种更加平静但同样有益的方式来释放自己正直的热情，这种真正的英雄主义时代已经结束了。而现在，我们不列颠的英雄通常是来自于赌桌而非田间，他们会为了等候骰子旋转的无聊结局而激情澎湃，却不会为了史册中那些因美德而进行的英勇斗争而热血沸腾。

事实上，离开赌场和牌桌，转而去指导国政，也许是更适合政客们的事情，因为他们在管理国家时所需要的也还是那些蒙混和欺诈的把戏。整个不列颠的政治制度——出于礼貌，我们仍然称它是一种制度——只是在增加贫无立锥之地的人口，以及设立捐税劫贫济富。政客们最大的特长就是保住自己的地位，即使是一场战争或者是其他各种白忙一场无果而终的事情，也都成为了他们给自己加官晋爵的好机会。

他没有必要去同情贫苦的人们，如此一来他就可以靠着那些花招来保住自己的家族安稳。或者他会在有需要的时候，观看轻骑兵在他面前列队走过，再简单地讲几句话，来表达出一点他对于英国人所谓的“天赋人权”的尊重——虽然他在说这个词的时候，并不了解它的含义，只不过借它来卖弄一下而已——他不冒任何危险，只要这一场华而不实的表演，就哄得军队像被牵住了鼻子的猛犬，任他驱驰。当人们为了有关人道主义的问题而争论不休的时候，他会装出富有人情味的样子，哄得刻耳柏洛斯也安静下来，他一方面兴致勃勃地和它谈论，好像他正在一心努力，让大地母亲不再因为她的孩子遭到刻耳柏洛斯的啃咬而发出复仇的呼喊；另一方面他那冷血的手却正在批准一项可憎的交易，好为它套上锁链。一个大臣只有在达到他为自己设定的目的时，才能成为一个大臣。所以，当他面临一次可能威胁他地位的、大胆的攻击的时候，他是不会讲任何人情的。

说完这些题外话，我要书归正传来谈谈那看似有理，实则束缚了全体女性的灵魂、让她们永远处于无知状态的奴役制度。

荒谬的等级之分，把人类文明变成了一种祸害，它将世界分为奢靡的暴君和狡诈嫉妒的依附者，让这两种人几乎同等地腐化败坏。社会对于一个人的尊重，与他是否履行相关的人生责任无关，而是取决于他的社会地位。爱情本该是美德天然的回报，但是当一个人没能履行自己的责任的时候，爱情就不会有足够的力量去巩固美德。但是，男性能够找到一些可供利用的漏洞，并且敢于按照自己的意志去思考和行动。但是对于女性而言，这是一项极为艰巨的任务，她还有一些女性所独有的困难需要克服，而这几乎需要超人的力量。

一位真正仁慈的立法者总是致力于让每个人都因为具备美德而得益，如此一来，私德就能够加强巩固整个社会的幸福，一个有序的总体是因为每个组成部分都在向着同一个中心而得以加强。可是，女性的私德和公德却都是有问题的，卢梭和其他一大批男性作家，坚持认为她们终其一生都应受到礼法的严格限制。如果她有更为高尚的行为动机，如果她拥有不朽的灵魂，为什么她们要受限于这种盲目的礼法呢？一定要用鲜活的血液才能制造出蜜糖吗？这些原则只是为了使男性的生活更加惬意的保障，为此就要让半数的人类，像可怜的非洲奴隶一样，忍受那些视她们如禽兽的偏见吗？这难道不是在迂回地否认女性的理性？天赋如果不能得以善用，就是一个讽刺。

女性与男性一样，也因财富带来的轻松享受而变得软弱和奢靡，但是，除此之外她们还被迫成为自己美貌的奴隶，她们必须秀色可餐，这样男性才会把自己的理性借给她们，指引她们蹒跚地走向正途。她们如果野心勃勃，也必须要通过阴谋诡计来操纵她们的暴君去实现，因为她们没有权力，所以自然也不承担任何责任。与女性有关的法律（我准备在后文中对此进行讨论），让男性与其妻子的结合变得荒谬可笑，于是，通过认定只有丈夫能够承担责任这个轻巧的转变，妻子被贬低成为了可有可无之人。

那些完成了在自己所处的位置上应尽的责任的人，是独立的。对于女性而言，一般地说，她们的首要职责就是把自己看作是有理性的人；其次重要的则是把自己看作是公民，履行包括做母亲在内的诸多责任。她们的社会地位，让她们可以免于履行这些责任，必然也会让她们堕落为玩物。她们或许能够把注意力转移到比穿衣打扮更为重要的事情上去，可是那也不过是一心想着一些柏拉图式的绮思爱念，或者心思活络地去耍弄一些手段。由于她们忽略了家庭责任，所以她们没有力量像士兵那样占领阵地、进攻或撤退，或者是在议会中展开辩论，以防止自己的才能消退。

我知道，为了证明女性的低劣，卢梭曾经兴奋地大喊：她们怎么可能离开育婴室走向军营！军营也被某些道学家认为是培养最英勇的美德的学校。可是我认为，即使是机敏的诡辩家也会为了证明很多英雄辈出的战争的合理性而感到为难。我并不想对这个问题进行批判性的讨论，因为我看多了国土分裂、草木毁于兵火，人们已将这些野心作祟之下的畸行当作是一种非常自然的文明形态，所以我不把它们称作是祸害。可是，目前的战争体制也毫无疑问地与任何一种美德都没有关联，与其说它培养了刚毅的性格，倒不如说它催生了狡诈与软弱。

在当今高度发展的社会中，为自卫而进行的战争是唯一可以称得上是正当的战争，我们在其间可以看到美德的显现，并且看到它在艰难困苦中逐渐成熟。如果我们可以认为这样的战争是正义而且公平的话，那么那些流传千古的、真正的英雄事迹也许可以再度激发女性的情怀。但是，我敬爱的、温文尔雅的读者们，无论您是男是女，都请不要惊慌：虽然我把现代士兵与文明女性的品格相提并论，但我并不打算劝说女性弃女红而就刀兵，我倒是真诚地希望能够看到刺刀变成修枝的剪刀。我只是厌倦了看到那些污染了自然情感的横流物欲所造成的恶行和愚蠢，我要重新展开想象，期待社会或许有朝一日可以这样组成：男性必须履行其作为公民的责任，否则就会被人轻视，在他承担某种公共生活职责的同时，他的妻子应当同样也是一位活跃的公民，她应当专心地管理家务、教养子女和扶助邻里。

但是，要想让女性成为真正具备美德以及对社会有用的人，我们就必须要保证，只要她履行了作为公民的责任，国家的法律就会给予她身为一个公民所应得到的保护。必须让她能够在丈夫的有生之年里，不需仰赖他的施舍生活，也无须在他过世之后，指望他的遗产来赡养自己——一无所有之人如何能够慷慨？失去自由之人何以能够高尚？一位忠于自己的丈夫，但是既不哺乳也不教育孩子的妻子，她确实配不上“妻子”的称号，可是她也并不享有公民的权利，既然被剥夺了与生俱来的权利，自然她也就无须再承担责任，这就是我们现在所面临的情况。

当女性的身心都变得如此衰弱，她们就无力发展自己，只能去追求一些虚幻的享乐或者创造一些轻浮的风尚，如此一来，她们必然会沦落到只能作为男性荒唐时的慰藉。在这个大城市的早晨，可以看到无数马车仓皇驶过，马车中都是面色苍白、魂不守舍的女子，对于一个有理性的人来说，还有什么景象能比这更令人伤心？我也曾常常像约翰逊博士一样，期望能够将这些女子送到小作坊里去做工，好去养活那许多仰望着她们懒散的面庞、等待她们照顾的孩子。我大错特错：生命潜在的活力，并不能在她们的眼中瞬间点燃健康和活泼的神采。那往日里只点染着酒窝笑纹的面颊，如今已然苍白，那上面没有刻下践行理性的纹路。而只有理性，才能归还给她们那失落了的人格尊严，才能让她们变成真正高贵的人。美德不能自空想中获得，更不能从财富所自然衍生出来的消极怠惰中获得。

此外，当人们认为贫穷比罪恶更加可耻之时，道德难道不是已经被败坏到无可收拾？为了避免误解，我要做出说明，虽然中产阶级的女性可以在宗教和理性的感召之下善尽妻子和母亲的职责，但上流社会女性却没有一条道路，可以引导她们去实现那些有益而且独立的高远追求，我无法不为此感到悲哀。先提示一下，我接下来要讨论的一个问题也许会激起人们的嘲笑，但我确实认为应当有女性国会代表，而不是让女性对专横的统治逆来顺受，没有任何直接参政议政的权利。

但是，女性也不必为此而抱怨，这个国家整个的代表制度，不过是专制统治的一个便利工具，有许多辛苦工作的工人也同她们一样被人代表了，这些工人几乎无法养活自己的孩子，却仍要承担王室的开支。工人们用汗水供养着那些显赫的财产继承人的漂亮种马、装饰着那些不可一世的时髦贵妇的敞篷马车，他们是如何被代表的？他们必须为生活必需品缴税，好让那些数不胜数的闲散的王子公主们可以在各种无聊的仪式上招摇过市，民众看着他们经过目瞪口呆，几乎是在崇拜这些残酷压榨他们的人们。这不过是一种哥特式的壮观，就像白厅街上巡视的骑兵队列一样野蛮而无用，这样的景象让我无法不感到轻蔑和愤怒。

当一个人因这样的景象而深受触动，他会感到多么的不可思议、多么的迷惑啊！但是，除非美德能够将这些愚蠢行为清扫一空，否则此类愚行仍将潜移默化地影响全体社会大众。这是因为，从某种程度上来说，社会群体中会盛行同种性质的行为：富人浮华奢靡，穷人恶毒地嫉妒，同样会使一个社会所特有的道德败坏沦丧，或者让道德仅仅成为文明人自我装扮的戏服上的一个装饰条纹。

在上层社会，一切责任皆有人代为完成，就好像人真的可以摆脱这些责任。懒散的生活必然驱使富人去追求那些空虚的享乐，在较低阶层的人看来这些空虚的享乐是如此迷人，以至于无数渴求财富之人愿意牺牲一切去追赶他们的脚步。他们把最神圣的职务看成是个挂名的好差事，因为那都是靠利益交换来的，而且他们也只不过是想靠它给自己带来好朋友。尤其是女性，都梦想着成为贵妇，终日无所事事，无精打采地闲逛，自己也说不出到底是为了什么。

但是有人可能会问我，除了轻松自在地闲逛，女人还需要在社会中做什么？你总不会要求她们都去养育傻瓜和记录鸡毛蒜皮的小事吧！不。女性当然可以去学习医学，成为医生或者护士。或者去做接生妇，这看起来也更加符合礼法，不过我担心在我们的字典里，“接生妇”这个词很快就会被男性产科医师所取代，这个象征过去的女性礼法的词语将从我们的语言中被抹掉。

她们也可以学习政治，让她们的仁慈建立在最宽广的基础上。如果仅仅把历史当作传记来阅读，如果不关注时代的特征、政治上的改进以及艺术等，那么其功用不会比阅读爱情小说更大。简言之，如果不把历史当作是人类的历史来看，那它就没有什么益处。历史也不是某个被摆在名誉圣殿的神龛里的特殊人物的历史，那些人终将湮没在时间那横扫一切的洪流里，将他们都抛入一片混沌而虚空的所谓“永恒”之中——那是否就是所谓的“大象无形”？

如果女性可以接受更加系统的教育，那么她们也可以从事各种职业，这也许会让许多人免于从事卖淫的职业，虽然这种情况既普遍又合法。女性将无须再为了生存而结婚，就像男性只为了谋生而接受一个公务员的工作，却完全不理会他在这个职位上所应尽的责任一样，也不必再为了努力地生存下去——那真是非常令人敬佩的努力——而沦落到几乎与那些被生活所抛弃的娼妓一般可怜的地步。那些女帽制作者和女裁缝不是被看作是仅仅略高于娼妓的阶层吗？现在女性可以从事的少量职业大都是卑贱的，远远不够自由。当她们接受了较好的教育，足以承担教育的责任，成为孩子们的女家庭教师的时候，她们的待遇却比不上那些男孩子们的家庭教师，而且即使是那些来做家庭教师的牧师们，也不能总是得到应得的待遇，以使他们成为孩子眼中可敬的人，更不要说提供他们一种舒适的个人生活。而上流社会女性所接受的教育，却从来不教会她们去面对这些屈辱的境况，那被认为是对她们的贬低，可是有时她们却不得不担任这一类的工作，她们对于人心也所知甚少，应该有人告诉她们，没有什么会比生活上的没落更能加倍地让她们感到痛苦的了。

这些女性当中可能有些人可以以一种谨慎和体面的方式保持独身，但其他的那些则可能无力用这种令人同情的方式来逃脱婚姻的奴役。如果一个政府不能通过鼓励那些诚实、独立的女性去谋求值得尊重的职位的方式，来为她们提供谋生之道的话，那么这个政府岂不是非常有问题，并且对于半数人类成员的幸福太冷漠了吗？女性，无论已婚或者单身，必须能够在国家中享有公民的身份，这样她们的私德才会有益于公德，否则我们就仍会看到一些可敬的女性，因为受到不应有的蔑视而感到异常痛苦，她们会像“被爬犁摧残的百合花”一样枯萎。

这是一个不幸的事实，也正是文明带给我们的、该死的财富！最值得尊敬的女性受到的压迫最深。而且，除非她们的见识远远超过一般人（也包括男性在内），她们必然会被当作是卑贱之人，进而也真的变得卑贱。有多少女性因此而在忧郁中虚度终生，她们本来可以成为医生、管理农场、经营商店，靠着自己的劳动独立地生活，可现在她们却被多愁善感的泪水坠得无法抬头，这种多愁善感一开始的时候还能给她们的美貌增添风采，时间长了却只会削减她们的美丽。不仅如此，我怀疑怜悯和爱情并不像诗人想象的那样关系密切，因为我很少看见女性的无助会激起他人的同情，除非她是个美人。所以，也许怜悯只是爱情的一个温柔的附属品，以及欲望的先声。

和装扮得完美无缺的女性相比，通过履行职责来谋生的女性，是多么值得人们更多的尊敬！您问我怎么看美丽？我能深深地感受到可敬爱的德行之美，或者是一个正派之人适度节制欲望的和谐妥帖，我可不好意思将它们与世俗所谓的美貌相提并论。能够从那令人眼花缭乱的享乐或者是良善女子一旦陷入便会变得麻木不仁的懒散中抽身，致力于要去达成这种高尚境界的女性，实在是太少了，这真是令人感叹。

无论如何，女性以自己的柔弱为骄傲，她们必须永远地被人保护，远离一切操劳以及所有能够提升心灵的艰苦劳动。如果这都是命中注定，如果女性甘心让自己无足轻重、被人轻视，舒舒服服地“在空想中浪掷生命”，那她们就不能指望在美貌消逝之时还能被人珍视，因为最美丽的花朵命中注定被人爱慕，却又被采摘它们的双手漫不经心地揉碎。从最单纯的善意出发，我多么希望能用各种方法将这个事实深深铭刻在女性的心中，但是我担心她们不会倾听这个用高昂代价换来的真理，虽然它已经引领许多不安的心灵恢复安宁，也不会愿意放弃阶级和性别的特权，来换取只有履行自己职责的人才能拥有的人性的特权。

有些作家主张，人无论处于何种境况，或者用什么样的虚情假意掩饰自己，都应该保持对人类的同情心，我认为这样的作家非常值得称赞。而且，我非常乐于说服有理性的人们，使他们相信我的一些意见具有重要的意义，并且请他们冷静地权衡一下我的这些观点的整体意图。我请求他们的理解，作为人类的一员，我以女性之名，也请求他们怀有一些同情心。我恳请他们促成女性的解放，让她们成为他们真正的伴侣！

只要男性愿意慷慨地解除对于女性的束缚，并且满足于与有理性的同伴相处，而不再寻求奴隶般的顺服，他们将会发现我们可以成为更加规矩的女儿、更加热情的姐妹、更加忠诚的妻子以及更加明智的母亲——总而言之，更好的公民。到那时，我们也将以真挚的感情来爱他们，因为我们学会了尊重自己。一位值得尊敬的男士不会再被他妻子的怠惰虚荣给扰乱了清静，他的孩子也不会再被塞到一个陌生人的怀里，完全感受不到母亲的温暖怀抱。

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

第十章 论父母之爱

父母之爱也许是最盲目、顽固的一种利己之情的变体。我们没有像法国人那样用两个词来将自然合理的欲望追求与软弱无知的算计区分开来。父母常常以全无理性的方式来爱他们的子女，并且牺牲一切相关的责任来帮助他们在社会上飞黄腾达。为了增加子女未来的幸福，父母极度专横地滥用权力，结果却把子女目前的生活变得痛苦不堪，这正是毫无原则的偏见带来的恶果。事实上，权力永远忠于其自身的重要原则，那就是无论以何种形式进行，它都要不受控制也不容置疑地实施统治。它将自己的宝座搭建在无人敢于一探究竟的黑暗深渊之上，以免人们在考察中发现它其实毫无根基，使得它的统治摇摇欲坠。所有暴君的关键词，都是服从，无条件的服从，并且，为了给自己一个“确定的保证”，独裁统治互相支持。如果理性成为任何生活关系都遵从的责任准则，暴君们都会瑟瑟发抖，因为光明会散布开来，直至白昼降临。那些曾让人们在无知的暗夜里和疑问初生的破晓时感到惊惧的怪物，当白昼真正地降临之时，人们会将它们付之一笑。

在许多人心里，父母之爱其实就是一个可以施行专制而免于受罚的托词，因为只有善良、聪慧的人们才会受到经得起讨论的尊敬。他们相信自己对于所坚持的事情享有权利，因为他们并不害怕理性，也不害怕探讨涉及自然公正的问题，因为他们坚信，人类的心灵得到越多启蒙，简单和公正的法则就能越深地根植其中。他们不依赖权宜之计，也不认为在道理上正确的东西在实践中可能会是错误的，他们蔑视朝秦暮楚的行为，静待变革到来的时机驱散自私与嫉妒的私语。

如果说人类有反思过去、以敏锐的目光展望未来的力量，并且这种力量是人类的一种特权的话，那么我们必须要承认有些人只是在非常有限的程度上享受了这种特权的好处。在他们看来，现有的一切都是错误的，而且他们无法分辨什么是可能发生的事情，什么是真正恐怖的事情，他们惧怕那些没什么值得恐惧的事情，如逃避炎热的火焰一般逃避理性的光芒。但实际上，从来没有什么事情是不可能发生的，坚定的革新者也不会因此而放弃。

而女性由于在任何境况下都是偏见的奴隶，因而很少会能够付出明智的母爱，她们要么不管孩子，要么因为溺爱而宠坏了他们。而且，就像我之前所说的，有些女性对于她们子女的爱时常是非常野蛮的，那种爱会摧毁一切人性的光辉。这些利百加式的女子，牺牲了正义、真理和其他一切东西，为了她自己的孩子，背弃了所有最为神圣的责任，忘记了使所有尘世上的家庭得以凝聚在一起的、共通的纽带。可是，理性却仿佛是在告诉我们，那些只为一种责任或感情而放弃了其他责任和感情的人，也不会有足够的情感和才智去履行这唯一的责任或感情。这样一来，这份责任也就失去了它那可敬的一面，变得像是心血来潮的奇思妙想一样。

照顾幼小的孩子是自然所赋予女性的一项伟大的责任，如果女性能够对此有正确的认识，那么它就会对于加强女性的理性提供许多强有力的支持。

培养心智必须要从很早就开始，特别是性情，最需要得到明智的关照——那些只是因为孩子是自己的孩子才会爱他们的女性，那些只凭一时的感情，却不会为自己身为母亲的职责寻求更进一步基础的女性，是没有能力给予这种关照的。女性的母爱之中缺乏理性，这令她们经常走极端，要么就成为最溺爱孩子的母亲，要么就成为对子女最漠不关心的、不近人情的母亲。

要成为一个好母亲，女性必须拥有健全的心智和独立的精神，可是女性被教导要完全依赖于她们的丈夫，很少有人能够拥有这两样素质。恭顺的妻子一般都是愚笨的母亲，她们想要成为孩子最爱的人，所以将孩子的父亲塑造成一个吓唬孩子的幌子，而自己则作为母亲在私下里违背他的意愿。如果孩子们应当接受惩罚，即使他们所冒犯的人是母亲，也应该由父亲来执行责罚，父亲应该是所有纠纷的仲裁者。我会在讨论私人教育的话题时对此进行更加细致的探讨，我现在只想坚决地表明一点，除非我们能够允许女性支配自己的行为，从而使她们的理性能够得到发展、性格也变得更加坚强，否则她们永远都不会有足够健全的心智，也无法控制自己的性情，可以去恰当地管教孩子。当一个母亲对于自己孩子的感情不能促使她去为孩子哺乳，那么她的这种感情，很难配得上被称为是母爱，因为履行哺乳的职责会同等地激发母亲和孩子对于彼此的爱，履行这些能够触发爱意的责任，对于男性和女性而言都是不可推卸的责任，这种爱意是抵御邪恶的最强有力的手段。我认为，所谓的亲情，是一种力量非常微弱的纽带，感情必须要在双方彼此习惯性的互相关爱中产生。一个将自己的孩子送到保姆手上，又从保姆手上送到学校里去的母亲，对于孩子能有什么关爱呢？

造物主给了女性一项能力，女性可以在情人成为了朋友、彼此之间的信任取代了过分的爱慕的时候，通过发挥自己与生俱来的感情，自然地找到一种爱情的替代品——孩子会将她从已然懈怠下来的爱情的束缚中解放出来，她与孩子彼此的关爱会催生出一种新的、双向的感情。如果孩子的双亲只是满足于将作为父母的责任委托给保姆的话，那么即使孩子是父母爱情的结晶，也无法保证他们的爱情生机不灭。父母的爱会促使子女在未来履行他们自己的责任，这就是履行父母职责的酬答，那些通过代理人来履行父母职责的人，不应因为错失了这种酬答而有怨言。

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

第十一章 论父母之责

人类似乎有一种懒惰的习性，那就是用命令代替理性，并且将每种职责都建立在专制的基础之上。王权可以直接上溯至万王之王，父母的权力则可上溯至人类的始祖。

我们总是求助于惯例，而这些惯例总是建立在同样的基础之上，在当下也和在一千年前一样，并没有更重要一丁点儿，为什么要这样呢？如果父母履行了他们的责任，那么他们就有充分的理由和神圣的权利要求子女的回报，但是很少有父母会乐于以这种方式赢得子女的敬爱。他们想要的是盲目的顺从，因为他们不配得到合情合理的奉养，而且他们为了让这种出于软弱和无知而做出的要求变得更加有约束力，还在这种专制的惯例上粉饰了一种神圣而不可侵犯的氛围。仅仅因为听从了一种力量强大的本能，就服从于罪恶或软弱的人们，这种毫无判断力的责任，除了“盲从”，还有什么能形容？我们可以用几句话给亲子之间自然存在的这种双向的责任下一个简单的定义：父母在孩子不能自立的时候给予他们恰当的照顾，也有权在自己衰老无力的时候要求子女给予他们同等的照顾。但是，当孩子已经到了可以为自己的行为承担社会责任的时候，再让他们作为一个有理性的生物去服从他人的意志，那会是对这种权利最为野蛮和不正当的滥用，这也许有点类似于宗教体制对于道德的损害，那个体制不允许人们对于上帝的旨意有任何对或错的评判。

我从来没有见过一个对子女特别关注的家长，会得不到子女的尊重。相反，如果一个人在小时候就养成了一种习惯，全然地依赖于可敬畏的家长的意见的话，那么即使是在成年之后理性说服他说自己的父亲并不是世界上最明智的人，他也很难再改变这个习惯。有理性的人必须下决心克服这个弱点——就算它可能称得上是可爱的，可它确实是个弱点。仅仅因为这个人是自己的父母就要服从于他，这种荒谬的责任被反复地灌输给人们，束缚了他们的思想，也让他们做好准备去服从任何强权，却唯独不听从自己的理性。

我将父母应尽的自然责任与附加责任区分开来。

努力塑造孩子心灵和拓展孩子智识的父母，给他们所履行的身为父母的责任增加了尊严，虽然所有动物都会履行作为父母的责任，但是唯有理性可以为其增添尊严。这就是富有人性的父母之爱，它远远超越了本能的亲情。这样的父母可以获得最神圣的友谊的一切权利，即便子女已经成年，他们的建议仍然值得认真考虑。

在婚姻方面，虽然子女过了二十一岁，父母就没有权利再提出反对意见，但是，父母二十年的关怀需要回报，如果自己选择的结婚对象没有完全得到他人生中最初的朋友的认可的话，那么做儿子的至少应当推迟两三年再结婚。

但是，通常来说，尊敬父母远非一个高尚的原则，它只是对于所有权的一种自私的尊重。对于父亲的盲目服从，要么仅仅是出于软弱，要么是出于令人品行堕落的动机。

世间可怕的悲剧大多是由父母的失职造成的，这些人也正是那些对于自己的所谓自然权利最为坚持的人，虽然他们的行为已经破坏了人类与生俱来的权利——按照自己理性的指引行事的权利。

我经常能够观察到，邪恶或者懒惰的人总是渴望能够通过推行专制的特权获益，通常他们也同样忽略了去履行那些能够使特权变得合理的责任。从本质上来说，他们的行为是出于一般的人情，或者是愚昧软弱之人所特有的自卫的本能，就像是游鱼通过搅乱它所游弋的塘水来逃避敌人的本能那样，他们不会在清澈的水中面对敌人。

实际上，所有的教派、所有成规的支持者，都逃离了辩论的清流，他们隐藏在黑暗之中，还以诗意而宏大的语言形容说那是散布在上帝宝座周边的黑暗，他们也因此而敢于要求一种不容置疑的服从，可这种服从只应献给上帝那不可测度的天道。请读者不要认为我这是自以为是，但是，我认为那种将上帝隐藏起来使我们无法看到他的黑暗，只是一种推测出来的真理——它无法遮蔽那些真正的真理，那些真理光芒四射、清晰可见，因为上帝即是光明，他就在我们的天性里，从不会要求我们去履行那些通过自己的眼睛无法发现其合理性的责任。

上层社会的懒惰的父亲，真的会强迫子女表达对于他的尊敬，欧洲大陆的女性更是服从家庭的意见，可是家族却从不考虑她们的意愿，也不会给这些为家族荣誉而做出牺牲的、可怜的受害者提供安慰。恶果众所周知。这些顺从的女儿变成了通奸者，她们忽视对于子女的教育，并且也和自己的家长一样，要求下一代对自己唯命是从。

事实上，在所有国家里，女性都被她们的双亲过度地控制着。虽然上天似乎想要让全体人类都以下面将要提到的这种理智的方式来交流，但是极少有父母会真正同他们的孩子这样讲话：“在你能够自己做出判断之前，服从我对你是有好处的。万能的上帝赐我关爱之情，让我可以在你的理性不断成长之时成为你的守护者。当你的心智达到成熟，你只需在我的意见与你自己的意见相一致时，才服从它，或者更准确地说，是尊重它。”

对于父母的奴性的服从，会使心灵的各种才能都受到阻碍。洛克先生很公正地说，“如果孩子的心智受到过分的限制和贬抑，如果用过于严厉的手段去羞辱和摧残他们的精神，那么他们会失去所有的活力和勤勉。”这里所说的严厉的手段，可能在某种程度上就是造成女性软弱的原因，因为女孩子们，由于各种原因，会在各个方面都比男孩子们受到父母更多的控制。就像所有那些被强加给女性的责任一样，人们要求女孩承担的责任，也更多是出于循规蹈矩的观念，是出于对礼法的尊重，而不是因为理性。她们就这样被教导得盲目地服从于父母，也为将来成为婚姻的奴隶做好准备。也许有人会对我说，有许多女性在婚后并不是奴隶。确实，不过在那种情况下她们就会变成暴君，因为她们通过卑劣的手段所得到的，并非是理性的自由，而是一种无法无天的权力，就像是专制君主的宠臣作威作福一样。我也并没想要暗示男孩或女孩会永远都是奴隶，只是我坚信，当他们被迫要盲目地服从于权威的时候，他们的才能会被削弱，他们的性情会变得专横或卑劣。我同样为那些父母感到悲哀，他们为了偷懒而动用了一种臆想出来的特权，他们熄灭了理性初萌的星星之火，同时也让自己所渴望能够履行的为人父母的责任变得徒有其名。因为他们不能允许将这种责任建立在它唯一可以稳固地根植其间的基础之上，除非责任能够建立在知识的基础之上，否则它就无法获得足够的力量来抵抗情感的风暴，或者是利己之爱的悄然侵蚀。可是有些父母是做不到这一点的，他们不能为自己对于子女的爱给出最为确定无疑的证明（或者更确切地说，他们没有通过履行他们的责任，让天然的亲子之爱深深地扎根在自己心中，也不能做到让孩子富有同情和理性、不会变成自以为是和骄傲自私的人），他们非常顽固地坚持要孩子服从自己的意志，而唯一的原因就是他们希望如此。相反，做出好榜样的父母，会耐心的言传身教，而这通常也会带来一个自然而然的结果——子女的尊敬。

卢梭坚决主张，不可以过早地教导儿童去服从理性，可是他并没有解释这种必要性的真谛所在。服从理性，就是服从万物的本质，就是服从上帝，上帝造物如此，正是为了增进我们真正的利益。

有些父母坚持要求享受特权，却不想要付出天道所规定的代价。为什么要让儿童的心智在刚刚开始发展的时候，就因为他们的怠惰而遭到扭曲？我之前曾说过，权利总是包含着责任，我想我们也完全可以推断出来，那些未能履行责任的人，也不应享有权利。

我承认，发号施令比讲道理更容易，但是我们不能因此就认为，孩子们不能理解为什么他们会被要求养成做一些事情的习惯。这是因为，稳定地坚持一些简单的行为准则可以产生一种有益的力量，它可以帮助公正的父母渐渐赢得孩子的心。如果能将之与深解童心的关爱糅合在一起，那它的力量确实会变得很强大。因为我相信，我们必须承认，一般来说，我们所激起的感情总是与我们自己心中生长出来的感情是相似的，我们通常以为天性之爱与理性是截然不同的，但也许我们能在它们之间发现比我们通常所以为的更加密切的联系。不仅如此，我们还应该看到，当亲子之爱只是发自于心灵，那么它似乎会带有某种动物性的反复无常，这就是培养女性理性必要性的另一个证据。

滥用身为父母的权威是对孩子心灵最初的伤害，而且它对于女孩的伤害比对男孩更加严重。那些从来不允许自己的意愿受到异议的父母，除非他们正好心情愉快或者十分放松，否则他们几乎都是非理性的。为了逃避这种专制的权威，女孩子们很早就学会了一套本领，并且在未来把它们用在自己的丈夫身上。我经常看到，伶牙俐齿的小姑娘管理着整个家庭，除非她的母亲偶尔心情不好发了脾气——也许是因为她的头发梳得不好，也许是因为她前一晚在牌桌上输了钱，数目大到她没法跟自己的丈夫说，也许是因为其他一些让她心情不快的原因。

讨论过这一类的典型事例之后，我陷入了一系列与女性相关的忧思之中。我的结论是，她们最初的情感一定会将她们引入歧途，或者使她们的各项职责彼此冲突，然后她们就会完全听从自己的一时兴起或者是风俗习惯，她们也很难随着年龄的增长取得什么成就。唉，一位教师要如何才能纠正这样的错误？教给她们任何建立在正确原则之上的美德，都等于是在教导她们轻视自己的父母。我们不能也不应该教导孩子们去宽容他们父母的过错，因为任何此类的宽容都会削弱他们心中理性的力量，并且让他们更加能够宽容自己的过错。“严于律己，宽以待人”是成年人最高尚的美德之一，但是我们只能教给孩子们简单的道德。因为如果孩子们过早地开始体验人类的激情和行为，他们就会逐渐丧失约束自己的严格界限，他们变得自我放纵，也同样变得不仁不义。

孩子和软弱的人，他们的感情总是自私的，他们爱别人，是因为别人爱他们，而非因为他人的美德。除非他们最初的爱里加入了尊敬，除非他们将自己最初承担起来的责任建立于理性的基础之上，否则他们的道德总是会遇到阻碍而不能生发。然而，我担心，除非社会结构发生非常大的变化，否则父母亲们还是会坚持要求子女服从于他们。因为子女会服从于他们，而父母们则会不断地致力于将这种权力建立于神权的基础之上，虽然这种神权根本禁不起理性的检验。

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

第十二章 论国民教育

我们对于私人教育能够达到的好结果关注非常有限，而真正亲自教育子女的父母，除非等到教育成为国民广泛关注的问题，否则他们难免要经历某种程度的失望。一个人不可能和自己的孩子一起过着与世隔绝的生活，即使可以那样生活，他也不能再回到自己的童年时代，成为幼儿或少年们合格的朋友和玩伴。当孩子们生活在成年男女的世界里的时候，他们很快会沾染上早熟的成人习气，原本充满活力的脑力和身体也会因此而停止成长。为了充分发展孩子们的才能，应该激发他们自己去思考；要想达到这个目的，就要让很多孩子玩在一起，让他们为了共同的目标而齐心协力。

如果一个孩子不必自己收集信息，而只是提出问题，然后就毫无保留地接受他所得到的答案，那么他可能很快就会在思想上变得麻木懒惰，而且他不太可能有足够的能力去摆脱这个坏习惯。要是他是跟同龄人在一起的话，就绝不会发生这样的问题。他也许会受到成人的答案的影响，但却不再会唯其马首是瞻。成年人时常急于给孩子答案，这样做就算不会毁掉孩子的天赋，也常常会妨碍它的发展，如果孩子只和某个成年人交往，那么无论这个人是多么有判断力，他都极可能犯下这样的错误。

此外，青少年也是应当播下各种情感的种子的时期。对父母的尊重敬爱，与构成一个人未来幸福的各种社会情感非常不同。平等是社会情感的基础，人们讨论观点时不会被那种不容置疑的严肃氛围所阻碍，虽然这种讨论未必能够使别人服从自己。要是一个孩子对他的父母怀有那种尊重敬爱的感情，他就总是会渴望能够和同龄人玩耍交谈。孩子所抱有的这种尊重之情——孩子对父母的尊重中总是多多少少夹杂着一些惧怕的成分——即使没有让他变得狡猾，至少也会使他不会向父母毫无保留地道出心里的那些小秘密，他们更愿意把这些事敞开心扉倾诉给友爱而互相信任的朋友，而这样的分享会帮助逐渐扩展他们爱心的宽度。此外，孩子也只有在不断地彼此交往中才能培养出坦率朴实的言行举止，他们可以不假思索地说出自己的想法，既不担心有人会责骂他自以为是，也不担心会有人笑话他愚蠢。

我对当下学校管理方式的印象，令我自然而然地热烈拥护私人教育，但是更进一步的经验让我从不同的角度考察这个问题。然而，我仍然认为，按照现行方式管理的学校是罪恶与愚蠢的“温床”，要是人们还有可能在那里学到一些关于人性的知识的话，也只能是狡诈的利己主义。

在学校里，男生们变得贪吃和邋遢，不但没培养起对家庭的感情，还早早地就学会了放荡玩乐，这种生活败坏了他们尚未长成的身体，让他们变得心肠冷硬，也削弱了他们的理性。

事实上，就算没有其他原因，我也会为了假期而反对寄宿学校：对假期的期盼会让学生的情绪处于一种不安定的状态。保守地估计，孩子们的精神至少有一半时间都被用在热烈地期盼假期。而一旦假期来临，他们就过上了全然无所事事、骄纵任性的生活。

相反，如果他们在家里接受教育，他们确实不必再像在学校里一样无所事事地度过一年里将近四分之一的时间，再用差不多的时间去追悔自己的无所作为和期待新的假期，而是可以以一种更加有秩序的方式来安排学习。然而，在家学习也可能会让他们对于自己的重要性做出过高的估计，因为他们可以号令仆从，而且大多数母亲由于急于教授给孩子一位绅士所应具备的技能，言谈举止之间都会表达出对孩子的焦虑，这会将一位男士所能具备的美德扼杀在萌芽之时。这些孩子在应该认真学习的时候就被置身于交际场合，虽然还是小男孩，可是却被当成成年男子一样对待，他们就这样渐渐地变得爱慕虚荣而又缺乏阳刚之气。

唯一可以避免这两种同样有害德行的教育方式的办法，就是设法找到一种可以整合公共教育和私人教育的方式。以这种方式来把一个人培养为公民，也许需要两个自然而然而又至关重要的步骤。要培养孩子们对家庭的感情，这会帮助他们打开心灵接受人性之中各种各样的可能，同时也要让孩子们把大部分时间都用来彼此平等地一起玩乐相处。

我仍然能够快乐地回忆起乡村的日间学校：虽然路程遥远，可是无论晴雨，每天清晨都有一个小男孩随身带着书本和午餐，独自走路去上学。不会有仆人牵着他的手，穿好衣裤之后，他就可以自由活动。放学后他也一个人走路回家，晚上则在父母膝前絮絮数说这一天的经历。父亲的房子就是他的家，在此后的一生里无论何时想起都满怀深情。除此之外，我恳请那些接受过这类教育的优秀的人们，去回忆他们温习功课的绿茵小径，他们在那里做风筝、修球拍的一道矮墙，这些难道不会让他们觉得乡村是如此可爱吗？

但是，在伦敦附近一所寄宿学校里度过了几年被严格限制的日子的男孩子们，能有什么令他愉快的记忆呢？说实在的，除了曾作弄过一位只是用来吓唬人的、可怜的看门人，或者从一位馅饼师傅那里抢了一块饼，又像只自私的猫一样独吞了它，他还能想起什么呢？在各种各样的寄宿学校里，低年级的男孩子以调皮捣蛋为消遣，高年级学生则以做坏事取乐。此外，在大型的学校里，男孩子们系统性地分化为压迫者和悲惨的被压迫者，还有什么会比这个对孩子们的品行更加有害的？更不用说那些让宗教变成闹剧的、强制性的仪式了。那些年轻人参加圣餐仪式是因为怕交那半个畿尼的罚款，他们也许还等着拿这些钱去找乐子呢，这样的仪式对他们能有什么好处？年轻人们有一半的时间都在逃避参加公共礼拜，他们的逃避也许是有道理的，因为如此重复地做同一件事情对于他们活泼的天性来说确实是一种令人厌烦的束缚。这些仪式对孩子们的品德造成了致命的影响，他们嘴上说得头头是道，心里却对此不以为然。既然教会无法像银行一样保存他们今天参加仪式的功德，以备将来抵偿这些可怜的灵魂所受的苦，那么为什么不废除它们？

可惜在这个国家，对革新的惧怕，已经扩展到所有的方面。这种惧怕十分隐晦，是懒汉们怯懦的恐惧。他们把旧事物当成是传家宝一样，死守在那个让他们觉得舒适的地方。他们吃喝玩乐，除了参加一些传统而空洞的仪式，并不履行责任。可以看到，这些人正是最热切地坚持各种事物创始者意图的人们，他们反对所有变革，好像任何改变都是对正义的伤害。

我现在特别想指出的是，在我们的大学里保存下来了种种天主教会的遗迹，那里的教徒们看起来对国教是如此的忠诚，可是这种热情却从来没有让他们忘记去惦记那些主持迷信仪式的贪婪神父们所搜刮来的肮脏财富。不，他们可是他们那个时代里的聪明人，他们尊重因长期占有而获得的占有财产的权利，把它当作是强有力的靠山，就像在过去的日子里一样，让铃声仍伴着祈祷声缓缓地响起吧，举起圣体人们的罪孽就能被清洗。他们唯恐改革一旦开启，变化便会接踵而来，人们思想的改变会剥夺他们对财产的权利。天主教的这些传统对于教士品德的侵蚀无以复加：这些懒惰的人，一天两三次漫不经心地进行一些他们自己也认为毫无用处的祈祷仪式，就自以为是尽了责。结果，他们很快就失去了责任感。在大学里，无论是被强迫出席还是逃避出席礼拜，学生们很快就对仪式本身产生了习惯性的轻蔑，做礼拜时他们都十分懒散。他们像例行公事一样地咕哝几句祈祷词，就像是个笨小孩在重复自己的话。神父们通常是一下圣坛，便已经忘了自己说过什么，就算是在吃着他们以如此不诚实的态度换来的晚餐的时候也是一样。

实际上，没有什么比当下这个国家里举行的天主教礼拜仪式更加对神不敬的了，也没有什么团体像天主教会一样靠着这些幼稚的仪式网罗了那么多软弱的奴隶。天主教那令人厌烦的仪式仍在进行，却只余形式的空壳。那种即使不能净化心灵，却至少也能激发人们想象的庄严肃穆，如今已经荡然无存。欧洲大陆的大弥撒仪式一定会令每个参加过的人印象深刻，在那里人们迸发出想象力的火花、令人敬畏的悲悯和伟大崇高的温柔，这些感情是如此接近向上帝献身的情怀。我并不是说这种虔诚的感情会比其他各种趣味的感情对人们的道德更有好处，但是我相信，这种能令我们感官得到满足的、具有戏剧性的盛大仪式，要比无法抵达心灵而又有辱理性的、冷冰冰的表演要更为可取。

在所有关于国民教育的议论中，我们不能忘了这些人的观点：尤其是那些假装成宗教捍卫者的当权者，他们想要让学校退化成儿戏的地方。宗教啊，这痛苦的人间里唯一的安慰来源，你的清流怎会被那些戏水之人玷污，他们竟自以为是地想要把奔向上帝的滔滔活水——那是生活的伟大的海洋——限制在一条窄窄的沟渠里！如果没有基于人性之上的、只有上帝的爱才能给予的平静，生活将会怎样？所有尘世间的感情都会时不时地反噬培育它们的心灵。最纯洁的善意的表达，经常遭到人们粗暴的压迫，但却是自由意志献给上帝的礼物，正是上帝给了它们生命，在它们的微光里辉映着上帝的伟大形象。

然而在公立学校，人们把宗教与恼人的仪式和非理性的约束混为一谈，呈现出了它最令人痛恨的一面：它不再清醒朴素，能够激起人们的尊重与敬畏，反而成了语带双关的讽刺。实际上，大部分能让沉迷于牌局的人们精神起来的好故事和小把戏，都是从人们生活中的小事上编造出来的，也正是那些墨守成规之辈使这些小事变得可笑。

也许，在英国再也没有什么人能比掌管大学与公立学校的学究独裁者们更为教条和奢靡了。假期对老师和学生的道德都有不好的影响。老师们与贵族阶层交往，并向他们看齐，拙劣地在一些方面模仿着贵族的生活状态，把空虚和奢侈的生活带进自己的家庭，将家庭的责任和安乐赶出了神圣的婚姻殿堂。男孩子付出了很大的代价来到学校与老师和助教相处，为的是能够得到教化，可是他们从来没能达到过这个目的：老师本该是男孩父母的代理人，然而沉默的晚餐之后，孩子们匆匆喝下一两杯酒，之后就开始一起盘算着要耍些什么把戏，或者嘲弄他们刚刚还恭敬以对的老师们的言行举止。

这样一来，如果那些被与世隔绝的男孩子们变得自私刻毒，或者是那些勤奋的牧师中的某一个赢得了一顶主教的法冠，还有什么好奇怪的吗？想和比自己高一阶层的人享有同样的生活方式的欲望，已经传染了每一个阶层的每一个人，种种卑劣的行为正是这种可耻欲望的产物。但是，那些靠权贵赏赐加官晋爵的职业堕落得最厉害，年轻人的导师总体来说就是这样的职业中的一种。他们为了得到恩宠，言行举止都小心翼翼，能指望这些人去启发年轻人的独立观点吗？

不管怎样，到目前为止，我已经听到几位学校教师争辩说，他们只负责教授拉丁文和希腊文。他们为大学输送了不少好学者，所以他们已经善尽了自己的责任。男孩们的品德并不在他们考虑的范围之内。

我承认，靠着模仿和管教，是能偶尔塑造出好学者来，但是，为了培养这些聪明的孩子，牺牲了一大批其他孩子的健康和品德。

我们国家的绅士以及富裕的平民家庭的孩子大都在这样的学校里接受教育，有什么人敢说，这些孩子中的大多数能有任何一点可以勉强称得上像是学者吗？

只为了培养极少数杰出的人才而牺牲大多数人，这不是对社会有益的方式。确实，当大的变革发生的时候，会有伟大的人物适时出现，帮助社会恢复秩序，廓清真理之上的重重迷雾，但是，如果可以让更多的理性与美德流布社会，我们就将不需要别人来帮助驱散迷雾。各种名目的公共教育都应该以培育公民为目的，但如果我们想要培养好公民，我们首先得学会爱自己的孩子和兄弟。这是唯一能够开阔心灵的办法，因为大爱与公德，都必然是根植于私德的，否则它们就会像划过暗夜天宇的流星，不等赞叹与关注消散，就已然消失不见。

我相信，甚少有人，首先不是去爱他们的父母和兄弟姐妹，以及小时候做过他们玩伴的家养宠物，却能对人类怀有真诚的爱。人在年轻时代的同情心决定了他终生的道德水准，当他们后来更多地在理性的指引之下行事的时候，有关这些最初的情感与追求的回忆，都会成为他们的动力。人们在青年时代建立了最真挚的友情，并以甘露一般温柔的情感滋养着它，或者不如说，他们那乐于寻找友谊的心灵，更加习惯于寻找高贵的乐趣，而不是低俗欲望的满足。

因此，为了培养孩子们对家人及家庭幸福的感情，应当让他们在家里接受教育。狂欢节一样的假期只会让他们完全是为了自己才喜欢回家。假期除了不利于培养孩子对家庭的感情，还会不断地打乱他们的学习进程，让任何与自我克制有关的改进计划都劳而无功。可是，如果废除了假期，孩子们又将被完全地与父母隔离开来，我怀疑这是否能让孩子们成为更好的公民。它破坏了使婚姻关系变得不可或缺并且值得尊敬的那种力量，牺牲了孩子们稚嫩的感情。而且私人教育也可能会让人变得自高自大，或者让人变得与世隔绝，这只是把一个毛病变成了另一个毛病，并没有解决问题。

这一系列的推理将我们带回到我想论述的问题：建立良好的日间学校的必要性。

这些日间学校应该由国家来承办。因为如果学校的教师都要听命于家长的反复无常，那么我们很难期待教师们会在取悦这些无知之人的必要之举以外，再付出什么努力。确实，教师有必要给家长一些证明学童能力的测验结果，好让假期里的每位访客都能看到。可是这种做法所造成的伤害远比我们所想象的要严重得多。客气地说，这些成绩极少是完全靠孩子自己的努力得到的，教师们要么容许孩子们作假，或者逼着他们做超出其能力范围的事情，这会伤害到孩子们，打乱他们循序渐进的成长。孩子们在脑子里记下很多难懂的名词，只是为了炫耀，却完全不明白是什么意思。只有那种能够教会年轻人如何思考的教育才能当之无愧地被称作是对心灵的培养啊。在孩子们的理解力没有发展到一定程度之前，不应该让幻想妨碍它的发展，否则他们会在虚荣心的引领下染上恶习——一切炫耀孩子成绩的行为，都对他们的品性有害。

教师们让孩子们在死记硬背他们并不理解的东西上花了多少时间啊！那些母亲们，穿着最好的衣裳端坐着，惊奇地听着她们的孩子鹦鹉学舌般地背诵出强记下来的东西，他们的声调抑扬顿挫，却也极端地无知和愚蠢。这种表演只能加深心灵的空虚，因为它既不能教会孩子们流利的表达，也不能教会他们文雅的举止。不但如此，这些毫无意义的追求总体而言可以说是在教孩子们弄虚作假。我们现在极少会见到质朴羞怯的男孩子了，这对这个年纪的孩子来说原本是非常自然的，有见识的人也很少会对此感到不妥，可是学校生活以及过早开始的社交，已经把孩子们的纯朴羞怯变成了放肆和做作。

可是，当教师完全依赖家长来维持生活的时候，当有那么多的学校都在争先恐后地诱惑着爱慕虚荣的父母亲们的时候——这些人对孩子的爱只有一种表现，就是希望他们能比邻居家的孩子表现得更加出色——要如何才能纠正这些问题呢？

一位明智勤勉的先生，如果不屑于运用这些潜规则去迎合软弱的家长们的话，除非是极其幸运，否则他在能够支撑起一所学校之前，肯定会忍饥挨饿。

在管理最为得当的学校里，学生们虽然不会都挤在一起，可是也必然会染上许多恶习，而在一般的学校里，学生的身体、心灵和理解力的发展都会受到损害。家长们常常只想找一所最便宜的学校，而教师为了养活自己就通常要招收比他们能管理的数目要多得多的学生。学生所缴纳的微薄的学费，也不够让老师再雇用足够的助手来帮助他完成学校里的事务性工作。此外，无论学校的房舍和庭院看起来如何，孩子们都没机会享受它们，各种令人厌烦的规矩都在不断地提醒他们，他们并不是在家里，大厅、花园等这些地方，都要保持秩序，以备周日的时候家长们来参观学校。家长们会被学校的秩序井然所打动，可是这些却是以孩子们的不适为代价的。

我曾听到一些明智的女性讲述她们在学校里是如何忍受那些令人厌烦的禁闭生活的，我对这些规矩深恶痛绝，因为女孩子比男孩子受到了更多的约束和恐吓。她们走在美丽的花园里的时候，也许都不能走下那条宽阔的甬路。来回走动时要呆板地保持着安定的仪态，昂起头、脚尖保持着一定夹角、肩膀向后夹紧，她们不能随心所欲地用各种有益于健康的方式蹦蹦跳跳。那种纯粹的、有益于身心成长的、催开温柔的希望之花的勃勃生机，变得败坏，孩子们只能在落空的希望和辛辣的怨言里排遣压力，而这会损害她们的天赋、让她们的脾气变坏。如果不能排遣出来，她们就会一直想着这些事情，在还没有获得足够的辨别是非的能力之前，让脑力过早地发展起来，学来了一套可悲的狡诈之术，让女性的心性被挂上了可耻的标签——而我恐怕只要女性仍然是权力的奴隶，这个标签就会一直挂在那里。

我相信，男性对于贞洁的无所顾虑，是许多罪恶的兆因，许多折磨人类肉体和精神的恶行，许多败坏女性品性、让她们丢脸的恶习和愚行，都源于此。然而，在学校里，男孩子们丢失了他们正当的廉耻心，如果他们是在家中的话，这种廉耻心是有可能逐渐发展成为端庄谦逊之心的。

当许多孩子挤在同一间寝室里，没有什么肮脏下流的把戏是他们在彼此之间学不到的，更不要提那些会让人身体衰弱，又严重妨碍人们获得心灵之美的恶行了。男性忽视对于端庄谦逊的培养，这让他们在所有的社会关系中都表现得非常堕落。因为，过早成熟的欲望不但牺牲了爱情——爱情本应能够净化人的心灵，并且唤起青春所有的力量，使一个人能够为承担人生中各种有益的责任而做好准备——而且还让所有的社会情感都被那种自私的自我满足给削弱了——这种自我满足早早地污染了男性的心灵，也让他们心灵中那仁善的泉源日渐干涸。天真纯洁经常以如此不自然的方式遭到破坏，随之而来的严重后果则使得个人的恶行演化为社会的公害。此外，个人关于秩序的习惯，对于道德品格的影响力要比我们一般所设想的要大，而且这种习惯只能在家庭中养成。因为家庭中保持着一种可敬的自我克制，能够防止过分狎昵以至于沉沦于兽欲，使感情基础遭到破坏的情况出现。

我已经批判过女性被关在一起时会学习到的恶习，而且我认为这个观点同样可以套用在男性身上。然后，我得出一个我一直在思考着的、自然而然的结论：为了使两性都能得到提高，他们不但应该一起在家庭里，也应该一起在公立学校里接受教育。如果想要让婚姻起到社会黏合剂的作用，那么所有人就应该接受同一模式的教育，否则两性之间的交往就不能被称作是伴侣关系。除非女性成为有见识的公民，可以自力更生得到自由，无须再依赖男性，否则她们也无法履行这个性别所应当担负的特殊职责。为了防止误解，我要强调，我所说的女性拥有自由，其含义与男性彼此独立所指的自由含义一致。并且，除非女性能够与男性接受同样的教育长大，准备成为他们的伴侣而非情人，否则婚姻的神圣性也将无从谈起。这是因为那些特别卑鄙的狡诈手段会把她们变成可鄙之人，而压迫则把她们变得胆小怯懦。我非常肯定这是一个真理，所以我敢于大胆地推测：除非两性的美德都建立在理性的基石之上，除非两性对彼此的爱慕能由于他们对彼此的责任感而得到其应有的力量，否则美德将无法在社会上广泛地流传。

如果男孩和女孩能够在一起学习同样的课程，他们都会早早地培养起得体的仪态，并由此发展出谦逊的品格，而不是早早地就意识到男女之别。如果孩子们行为正当并养成习惯，那些虚伪的礼仪课程和礼节套路就完全没有必要。行止端正应当源自心灵的纯净，而不是像朝臣穿上礼服一样是为了给人看的。这种朴素的优雅是对于家庭感情的纯真礼赞，这难道不远远好过时髦的人们互致虚伪浮华的俗气恭维，实则毫无真情的交往吗？但是，除非理性在社会上得以占优，否则我们始终不会有足够的真心和鉴别力。人们的面颊上，本应布满只有纯真的爱情才能给予的神圣光辉，如今却涂满了青楼女子的胭脂。对女性的殷勤，以及其他被称为是爱情的东西，无须纯真的品性便可存在，但是伴侣之间情谊的基石却是尊重与信任，而尊重从来无法建立在不能互相理解的基础之上。

培养对于美术的品位需要很多的努力，但是不会比培养纯真爱情的趣味所需要的努力更多：而这两种趣味，都需要有开阔的视野，才能为人们带来很多的精神乐趣。为什么人们会赶着去热闹的场所和人多的地方呢？我会回答说，那是因为他们缺少精神层面的活动，没能培育出心灵的美德。因此，他们只能粗枝大叶地去观察和感受，他们觉得一切都简单乏味，不断地渴望着变化。

这个话题可以进行得比哲学家们已经知觉到的程度更加深入，因为如果造化特别指定了女性去负担持家之责，那么她会让女性特别地依恋这种感情。而现在，女性因耽于享乐而闻名，而且在我看来，她们也必然会如此，因为她们根本无法深入细致地了解家庭的乐趣，她们缺乏作为一切趣味的基础的判断力。不管感觉论者如何强辩，理性仍然拥有着向心灵输送纯正的欢乐的特权。

一篇能够让有品位的人一读再读、激赏不已的绝妙诗篇，我却看到过有人对着它懒洋洋地打哈欠；或者是当美妙的音乐令人几乎屏息之时，却有位女士问我大衣是在哪里买的。我也看到过有人冷冷地瞥过一幅精美绝伦的画作，却为了一幅粗鲁的讽刺素描画兴奋得双目放光；或者当我的整个灵魂正在为自然的极致之美而默然赞叹之时，我那被乖觉的命运强塞给我的旅伴却招呼我去看她的叭儿狗在耍漂亮的把戏。要是这样一个没品位的人，宁可抱着她的叭儿狗也不愿爱抚自己的孩子，或者是喜欢谄媚的妄语胜过于坦率的言谈，那又有什么可奇怪的？

为了证明我的观点，我们来看看第一流的天才和最有修养的人，他们似乎都对朴素的自然之美抱有最大程度的欣赏之情，而且他们必然也强烈地感觉到了那种弥漫在人性之中的、自然的爱以及纯真的感情的魅力，所以才能如此完美地描述它们。正是这种对于内心的关照以及因此而生的各种感情的力量，让诗人们得以刻画出人类的各种感情，让画家们热情奔放地绘画。

真正的品位从来都是以理性体察自然的产物，除非女性能有更多的理性，否则想要让她们拥有治家的品位就是空想。除非通过接受适当的教育来使她们的心灵掌握知识，否则她们那善变的感官总会让她们的心肠变得更硬，就算激发起来什么感情也会转瞬即逝。

女性会离开家庭，把嬉笑着的婴儿从她们本应哺乳孩子的胸前推开，不是因为她们有了知识，而是因为她们缺乏持家的趣味。许多许多年以来，女性都被容许做个无知之人，像奴隶一样依附于他人，可是关于她们，我们听到的仍然是耽于享乐、摇摆易变、偏爱浪子和士兵、像孩子一样喜欢玩意儿、虚荣心让她们把才艺看得比美德还重要。

历史记载了一连串的因为女性的狡诈而犯下的可怕罪行，都是因为这些软弱的奴隶有了足够的手腕去控制主人而发生的。在法国以及其他不知多少国家里，不是都有男性做着穷奢极欲的暴君，而女性成为他们狡诈的帮凶的情形吗？这能证明无知和依赖就会使她们驯服吗？她们办的傻事难道不是那些跟她们鬼混的浪荡子嘴里的笑话吗？有见识的人们难道不是一直在哀叹，对于服装的过度热爱和放荡的生活会永远夺走一个家庭的母亲吗？知识不会让她们心灵败坏，科学研究也不会让她们的思想误入歧途。可现在，她们不但没有履行上天赋予她们的、女性所特有的责任，相反，还不得不为了在两性之间那些持续的、公开化的强权游戏中取得胜利而耍弄手段。

所以，我是在政治与公民的意义上将女性称为奴隶的，因为她们迂回地攫取了过多的权力，在努力获得这些非正当的权力的过程里堕落了。

多希望有个开明的国家，能够尝试看看让理性引领女性回归本性与天职的话会有什么结果；尝试让她们与男性一起分享教育和管理国家的利益，看看当她们变得更加有智慧、更加自由的时候，会否成为更好的人。这种尝试是不会让她们受到伤害的，因为她们现在已经被男性置于一种卑微至极、无以复加的地位了。

为了使这成为可能，政府应当为各个年龄段的孩子建立起可令男孩、女孩共同接受教育的日间学校。接收五至九岁年幼孩子的学校应当完全免费地向各个阶层开放。每个教区应该选举一个委员会负责挑选足够数量的教师，只要有六名儿童家长联名即可向委员会提交关于教师玩忽职守的投诉。

这样一来，就不必招聘助教了。因为我相信，经验会证明助教掌握管理的权威对于年轻人的道德是特别有害的。唉，阳奉阴违，还有什么比这更能败坏品性的呢？可是，当教师待助教如同待仆从的时候，当他们几乎是纵容学生们在游戏时间里把戏弄助教当成是主要的消遣的时候，我们又怎么能期待孩子们会对助教心怀敬重呢？

而在一所日间小学里，男孩和女孩、贫民与富人，都相处在一处，就不会发生任何这一类的事情。为了避免那些虚荣浮华的东西将人们区分出三六九等，孩子们会穿同样的衣服，遵守同样的纪律，否则就不能留在学校里。教室周围应该有大片场地供孩子们进行有益的锻炼，因为在这个年纪，他们不应进行任何需要一次性久坐超过一个小时的学习任务。但是玩耍也可以被看作是基础教育的一部分，因为许多事物如果只是单纯地讲解原理的话，孩子们无法理解，但是如果在玩耍的过程中学习，他们的思维就会在得到锻炼的同时也感到愉悦。举例来说，植物学、力学、天文学就是这样的学科。阅读、写作、算数、博物学、一些简单的自然科学试验，也许足够填满孩子们一天的时间，可是不能因此而妨碍了孩子们在露天环境里的体育锻炼。宗教原理、历史、人类史、政治学，可以通过苏格拉底式的谈话来教授。

九岁以后，准备从事家务劳动或技术工作的男孩女孩，应该开始到其他学校接受适合每个人人生目标的指导，他们在晨间仍然一起接受教育，但是到了下午，女孩们去教授缝纫、女服和女帽制作等内容的学校，这些将是她们未来主要的工作内容。

天赋超群的年轻人或者是富裕家庭的孩子，可以在另外的学校里，学习各种古代和当代语言、科学的基本原理，并继续学习更为广泛的历史和政治学知识，文学也将是他们必修的科目。我想有些读者会问：男孩和女孩还要在一起吗？是的。除了孩子们可能早早地互生爱慕之外，我并不担心其他任何事情。而孩子们的感情虽然也许不完全符合家长们的观点，却会对年轻人的道德品质有极好的影响。我担心，还需要很长一段时间，社会才能变得足够开明，家长们才会让孩子们自己去选择他们的人生伴侣，而现在，他们只担心孩子们的品质。

此外，这也必然会促使人们早婚。而早婚自然而然地会对身体和德行都产生非常好的影响。一位已婚的公民和一位自私自利的花花公子，在品行上真是天差地远。花花公子只为自己活着，总是畏惧婚姻，因为怕结婚后就不能再像这样混日子。在构建于平等基础上的社会里，很少会发生重大的紧急事件，一个人只能通过履行社会责任来锻炼自己，很多在小事上养成的习惯决定了人们的品质。

在这个教育计划中，男孩子的身体不会早早地因为放荡的生活而被败坏，现在的男性已经被这种早年的放荡生活变成了自私的人，女孩子也不会因为懒散度日和浮华的追求而变得软弱而虚荣。但是，这些的成立是有前提的，我假定两性之间已经建立起一定程度的平等，不会再有殷勤小意和卖弄风情，并且，让友谊和爱情陶冶他们的心灵，使他们可以履行更崇高的责任。

这将是讲究道德以及人类的幸福的学校，它来自于人类责任与情感的纯洁源泉，在这里还有什么进步是人类的心智所无法达到的呢？社会的幸福程度、自由程度是和它的道德水准成比例的，但是我们现在的社会所建立起来的等级之分，侵蚀了一切私德，也摧毁了一切公德。

我已经猛烈地抨击过只让女孩穿针引线、不让她们参加任何政治及公共事务的习俗。因为这样限制她们的心智，会让她们无法履行自然所赋予她们的，也唯有她们可以履行的责任。

只是忙于日常琐事，必然会让她们变得狡诈。我自己经常在看到女性使用狡诈的手段去获取一些她们那愚蠢的心灵所念念不忘的无聊事物时心生厌恶。她们不被允许支配钱财，或拥有任何自己的东西，于是学会了暗地里赚钱。或者是当丈夫流连不归，让妻子觉得被冒犯或心生嫉妒之时，只需一件新长袍或一个精致的小玩意儿，就能平息她的怒火。

但是如果女性被教导要自尊自重，如果允许她们参与讨论政治和道德问题，她们就不会因为狭隘而品行低下。而且我还要大胆地断言，这也是让她们能够正确地关注到自己的家庭责任的唯一途径。一个活跃的心灵会接纳她所有的责任，并且会找到足够的时间去履行它们。我认为，大胆地追求男性的美德，沉醉于文学的迷人魅力，或者专注地钻研科学问题，都不会让女性背弃她们的责任。懒惰和虚荣才是问题所在——在空虚的心灵里，对于享乐和权势的热爱才是最重要的事情。我着重指出空虚，是因为现在女性所接受的教育根本不配被称为是教育：在关键的青年时期，她们只在才艺上学到些一鳞半爪的知识，而这些才艺知识也缺乏坚实的基础，因为除非理解力得到培养，否则一切才艺的装扮只不过是表面与单调的东西而已。好比一张妆装点过的美丽面容，在公众场合激起了赞叹，但是回到家里，由于心智不足，这种美就显得缺乏变化了。结果显而易见：在放荡狂欢的场合里，我们经常看到这样造作的灵魂和面孔，她们害怕离群索居，却也差不多同样地害怕着家庭生活，所以便逃到这样的场合里来；她们没有安慰别人或引人注目的能力，所以觉得自己无足轻重，也找不到任何能够聊以自慰或寄托精神的事情。

此外，还有什么比一个女孩子开始加入社交界更加不雅的事情？换句话说，这就是把一个适婚的女孩带进婚姻的市场。她被引领着，衣装华丽地出入一个又一个社交场合。然而，这些花蝴蝶们虽然人在束缚重重的浮华场合，心却渴望着能在更广阔的空间里飞翔，因为她们在灵魂深处最爱的还是自己。在为了决定她们一生命运的时刻而等待的时候，她们被一刻不停地提醒着，要随时注意自己的体态风度。我已经简单提到过，在一个不追求无聊的表面规矩，也不渴盼无味的表演和无情的谈话的学校里，两性的年轻人们将会有尊严地培养起爱慕的感情。富有家庭的孩子会在那儿一直待到成年，随着年龄增长，跳舞、音乐、绘画可以成为他们的课外活动。而那些希望从事特别职业的年轻人，可以一周用三四个上午去那些能够给他们合适指导的学校。

我现在所说的这些只是一些建议，它更像是我的计划的一个大纲，而不是成熟的方案。但我必须要补充一点，我非常赞同前任奥顿主教在那本小册子中所阐述的那种学校管理方式，他主张让孩子和青年们可以在惩罚方面不受制于教师。学生的言行应当由同学们评判，这是让公平的原则得以深植心灵的好办法，而且也许会对孩子们的性情有最好的影响。而在专横的管制下，他们很早就会变得尖酸易怒，直到终于成为暴躁狡猾或凶残傲慢之人。

我在想象里向这群可敬可爱的孩子们致以热情的敬意，不管那些硬心肠的人说什么。他们尽可以冷酷自大地诅咒我说我异想天开，而我要引用一位雄辩的道德家的话来回击：“一位有着真正仁慈心灵的人，他的热心会帮助他把每件事变得容易起来，他所关心的事情会比那些粗暴而令人厌烦的争辩更不令人喜欢吗？这些争辩对于公众福利漠不关心，对于任何想要增加公众福利的行为都是最大的障碍。”

我知道放荡的人们还会说，致力于得到身体和思想力量的女性，会变得不再像是女人。而且那种美丽，那种令人心醉神迷的温柔的美丽，也将不再装扮人类的女性。我对此有非常不同的意见，在我看来，情况刚好相反，只有到那时我们才能看到有尊严的美丽和真正的优雅，因为它们都需要有强健的身体和品德才能实现。那将是真正的美丽与优雅，而不是慵懒的美丽或无助的优雅。它们使人类的身体成为一座伟大的建筑，配得上让源远流长的高贵美德居住其间。

我并没有忘记那个流行的观点，说古希腊雕塑并非以真人为范本。我的意思是，它们并非据某一特别之人的比例制成，而是在众多人的身体中选择最美的肢体和容貌来组成一个和谐的整体。这也许在某种程度上是真的。那神奇想象之下的完美形象也许要好过雕塑者能够在自然中找到的任何素材，因而这些雕塑也许更适合被称为是人类的塑像而非某一个人的塑像。然而，雕塑并非是机械地拼接四肢和容貌，而是想象力热烈爆发的产物。艺术家用良好的艺术直觉和广博的理解力筛选出本质性的特征，在作品中热情洋溢地赞美它们。

我说这些作品不是机械地拼接的结果，是因为它们都是一个整体——一个刻画了人类伟大本质和共同激情的模型，它吸引了我们的注意、得到了我们的尊重。因为如果只是刻板地再现的话，即使对象是美丽的大自然，也只能表现出刻板而无生命力的美感。然而不管人们怎么说，我都相信过去人类的形体一定比现在要美得多，因为在我们这个奢侈的社会里，极度的懒散、野蛮的束缚以及其他许多限制身体的因素，使身体不但得不到发展，还会被折磨成残废。单纯从身体的角度考虑，锻炼与清洁看来不但是保持健康的必要之途，也是增进形体美的办法。然而只有它们是不够的，人还必须要同时具有美德，否则便只是粗糙的美，在一些未受教化的乡人那单纯健康的面颊上就时常会现出这样的美。为了让一个人变得完美，应当让他身体与精神上的美齐头并进、相辅相成。一个人应该要有头脑能够做判断，眼神中闪耀着情感与想象的光，面上有仁慈厚道的神色，否则再美丽的眼睛、再美好的妆容也不过是一场虚空，并且在他的每一个动作里，灵活的四肢和强健的关节也将表现出优雅谦恭的风度。但是这么美好的一个人不是偶然得来的，他是为了使各种美好相互融合、彼此促进而不懈努力的成果。因为判断力只能通过深思得来，感情只能在履行责任的基础上产生，仁爱则来自于对所有生灵的怜悯。

对动物的仁慈特别应当成为国民教育的一个组成部分，因为它还不是我们国家当前国民美德中的一项。低阶层的人民温和地对待驯顺而不会讲话的家畜，这在未开化的国家里比在文明国家中更为常见。因为文明阻断了瓦舍茅檐之下常有的那种与动物交流的机会，而正是这些交流使人们对家畜产生了感情。文明国家的人们则沉迷于社会上流行的种种礼数规矩，未经教化的人们被富人们踩在脚下，只能通过欺侮动物来发泄他们在上位者那里受到的羞辱。

这种残忍的习惯最初是在学校里养成的，在那里虐待落到他们手里的动物是男孩子们为数不多的运动之一。当他们长大后，这种对牲畜的残忍很容易就会转化为在家中对妻子、孩子、仆人的欺压。公正，以及再进一步的仁慈，除非广泽万物，否则是不会成为强大的行为动力的。不但如此，我相信我们可以总结出这样一条公理，凡是对苦难无动于衷之人，很快就会学会给别人施加痛苦。

粗野之人会被一时的感情以及他们偶然养成的习惯所控制。但是片面的感情并不可靠，即使它是正义的。因为这些感情没有经过深思熟虑而得以强化，他们会被习俗削弱，直到人们不再有这样的感受。我们天性里的同情心，会在深思熟虑之后得到强化，会因无心滥用而消失。麦克白在第一次谋杀时所受到的良心谴责，比在随后必然发生的一千次谋杀里都多。但是当我使用“粗野之人”这个词的时候，我并不是要把我的讨论限制在贫苦人的范围里，因为建立在一时的感情或冲动基础之上的、片面的人性，在富有阶层里至少是同样常见的。

一位女士会为了一只饿死在罗网中的小鸟落泪，会骂那些驱赶可怜的公牛、鞭打生病又负担过重的驴子的人们是人形的魔鬼，却也会让她的车夫和辕马在严霜刺骨或暴雨滂沱之时一连等她几个小时，她自己则待在门窗紧闭、风雨不侵的室内。她让小狗睡到她床上，并且在它们生病时充满感情地照料着它们，却放任她的孩子在育婴室里以不正当的方式被教养着。这里所举的例子都确有其事。我所说的这位女性非常美丽，凡是只在意面容美丽而不在乎思想的人都认为她非常美丽。文学并没有引导她的理性离开女性的职责，知识也没有败坏她的天真。不，按照男性对“女性化”这个词的定义，她非常地女性化。而且，她也根本不爱那些占据着本来应该属于她孩子的位置的宠物，她能精到地混用英文和法文，却只是在说些无聊的废话，以取悦那些围着她转的男人们。妻子、母亲和人类的身份都被虚伪的品格吞噬了，这就是不适当的教育和对美的自私虚荣所产生的恶果。

我承认我既讨厌那位把宠物狗而不是孩子抱在怀中的美丽女士，也一样讨厌一位鞭打马匹的粗暴男士，他声称自己知道该如何做个基督徒，其实已然行差踏错。我认为他们之间没有什么区别，都是同一类人。

诸如此类的蠢事表明，那些认为如果允许女性离开她们的闺房，却不去培育她们的理性就可以在她们心中种下美德的人是有多么的愚蠢。因为假如她们具备理性，她们将会养成持家的趣味，上至她的丈夫下至宠物狗，整个家庭都会在合理的从属关系下受到她的关爱，她也不会关爱一个畜生的舒适胜过关心人，哪怕是最卑贱的仆人也不会受到人格上的侮辱。

我对国民教育的观点显而易见只是一些建议而已。但是我非常希望强调让男孩和女孩共同接受教育的必要性，这会让他们都变得完美。也有必要让孩子们住在家里，这会让他们学会爱家庭。但是培养私人感情是为了支持而不是消灭对公众的感情，所以孩子们要去学校和一大批同龄人相处，因为只有在平等的竞争中他们才能渐渐对自己形成恰当的看法。

为了让人类更加富有德行，当然也是为了让人们更加幸福，两性必须按照同样的原则行事，但是如果只允许一个性别的人看到这些原则的合理性的话，这怎么能够实现呢？而且，为了让社会契约真正合理，也为了让那些启人心智，也是唯一能够改变人类命运的原则得以传播，女性必须要被允许将她们的美德建立在知识的基础之上，可是如果不让女性接受与男性同样的教育，她们就几乎无法做到这一点。她们现在要么被无知与低级欲望所累，已经低劣到不堪与男性为伍的地步；要么就像狡诈的蛇一样蜿蜒着爬上知识之树，却只学来了将男性引入歧途的本事。

纵观各国历史，可以很清楚地看到，不能将女性仅仅局限在家务琐事之中，这是因为除非能够有更加广阔的视野，否则她们无法善尽治家之责。而且，当她们一直保持着无知状态的时候，她们在成为男性的奴隶的同时，也将同样成为享乐的奴隶。她们也不应该被排除在伟大的事业之外，虽然她们理解力有限，却常常会让她们所不了解的事情因她们而遭遇挫折。

上层人物的放荡，甚至是他们的一些美德，常常会让一些类型的女性得到控制他们的力量。这些软弱的女性，由于受到任性的热情和自私的虚荣的影响，会以一种错误的眼光来看待问题，而那些为她们所控制的男性，本应去启发她们的判断力，却也接受了她们看待事物的眼光。那些不切实际的男性，或者是那些非常自信，却又手握大权的人们，通常在和女性打交道的时候会变得松懈。无须我赘述，就算是最粗知史书的人也知道不少由受宠的女性出于个人动机而造出来的种种罪孽和压迫的例子，更不要提那些本是出于好意的无知干涉，却造出恶果的事情。在处理事务的时候，碰到一个傻瓜还不如碰到一个坏蛋，因为坏蛋做事总会有个计划，而任何有逻辑的计划都比突如其来的蠢主意要容易看穿得多。卑鄙愚蠢的女性却有能够控制明智而有理性的男性的力量，这种例子人尽皆知，我只消举一个出来。

卢梭将女性的品格描绘得如此高尚，有谁能比得过他？可是总体来说，他又时常极力地贬损女性。他为何会如此焦虑？他是在向自己证明他的爱情是合理的，软弱和美德让他对愚蠢的特丽莎珍爱有加。他没办法帮她提升到一般女性的水准，所以他费尽心力地把女性贬低到她的程度。他发现她作为伴侣不但于他十分便利，而且她还十分谦卑，出于骄傲他决定要在这个他选择的生活伴侣身上找出一些超凡的美德。但无论是在他生前还是死后，她的行为都清楚地表明他把她称作“神圣的天真之人”，是多么的大错而特错。不仅如此，他自己也悲叹心中的痛苦，当他身体衰弱，无法再待她如一位女士之后，她便不再爱他了。她会这样做真是再自然不过了，他们在思想上几乎没有共通之处，一旦性关系不复存在，还有什么能留住她？她的感情是针对男性的，而不是针对某一位男士的。想要将爱情转化为更为宽广的、仁慈的情感，需要理性的作用，可是许多女性并没有足够的心力去爱一位女士，或是与一位男士保持友谊。女性在两性关系上的弱势让她们需要依赖男性，从而让妻子对丈夫的感情变得像是被豢养的猫一样——她取悦于他，与她取悦任何喂养与爱抚她的人并无二致。

然而，男性却常常对这样的爱情感到心满意足，就像野兽一样把要感情控制在自己的势力范围内。要是他们能变得更加有德行一些，他们一定会期望能够在与情人戏耍纠缠之后，还可以有一位在炉火边谈天的朋友。此外，要想让性的乐趣变得更加多样化与有趣味，理性也是必要的。如果一个人既无德行又无理性，对这样的人还能保持爱慕、心生欲念的人，智能水平实在低下。理性总是有它的吸引力，如果女性不能在总体上达到与男性相当的水平，有才华的男性就会聚拢在少数的优秀女性身边，就像古希腊人聚拢在交际花身边那样。这些人受到吸引离开了家庭，如果他们的妻子能够具备更多一些理性，或者通过对理解力和想象力的锻炼而具备了更为优雅的风度的话，他们本来是可能会留在家里的——理解力和想象力正是趣味的正当来源。

一位有天赋的女性，如果不是生得太过丑陋，总是会因为女性整体的软弱的陪衬，而获得强大的力量。当男性通过理性努力追求美德和风度的时候，他们也会要求女性具备这些特质，而女性只能通过与男性一样的方式得到它们。

在法国和意大利，女性会把自己关在家里面吗？虽然到现在为止她们还没有获得政治权利，然而她们难道没有通过非法的手段去攫取大权，腐化了她们自己和那些在感情上被她们玩弄过的男性？简言之，无论我从哪个角度来看这个问题，理性和经验都使我相信，让女性能够履行她们特殊责任的唯一途径，就是把她们从一切束缚中解放出来，让她们享有人类与生俱来的权利。

让她们自由，她们很快就会变得明智而富有德行，而男性也会更加明智而富有德行。因为改进总要是双方面的，否则这占人类半数的群体会因为不得不臣服于他人而去报复那些压迫者，男性的美德会被他们视如敝屣的女性败坏得一干二净。

让男性自己做出选择吧。男性和女性虽非一体，却是为彼此而生，如果他们不帮助女性提升，女性就会引领他们走向堕落！

我所说的提升和解放是针对全体女性的。我知道有些女性由于机缘巧合或者受强烈的本性所驱使，具备了超越其他女性的知识，她们常常会变得过分骄横，但是也有一些有知识的女性，并没有丢掉谦逊的作风，她们也不会一直卖弄自己的学问，去鄙薄那些无知的人，虽然她们一直致力于让自己免于无知。劝导女性学习的忠告时常引来惊叹侧目，尤其是来自那些年轻漂亮的女性，这多是出于嫉妒。有时候她们会遇到更有理性与修养的女性，这些女性能将谈话导向更为理智的方向，整个晚上即使是她们明亮的眼眸和轻浮的调笑也无法一直吸引人们的注意，此时她们唯有不约而同地以这样的女性很少能找到丈夫来自我安慰。有些女性会使用我前所未见的挑逗手段（这真是一个描写这类花招的好字眼）去扰乱一个理智的谈话，因为这些谈话让男性把她们这些漂亮女士给忘到了一边。

我们承认无论是男性还是女性，都会因为具备罕有的才能而扬扬自得到令人厌烦，这也是人之常情——但是当女性掌握了一点知识就变得非同一般、就会被讥讽为博学之人的时候，女性的才能已经低劣到什么程度了啊？这点知识不过刚够让她们自得，或者激起一些同性与异性的嫉妒而已。不仅如此，还有很多女性不是只因为表现出了一点理性就受到了最严厉的指责吗？我要举几个大家都知道的例子。我经常听到一些女性因为听从了医生的建议而没有按老法子带孩子就受到批评，连每个微不足道的缺点都被人揭露出来。我还听到过更极端的、对于革新的野蛮对抗：有一位母亲一直明智地关怀着她的孩子们的健康，可是当她因为一些在孩子处于婴儿期时无论如何谨慎也难以抗拒的原因而失去了一个孩子的时候，人们却说这位明智的母亲不近人情。认识她的人说，这都是因为她接受了关于保持孩子舒适与清洁的新观点的缘故。那些假装自己经验丰富的人们——他们长期以来所坚持的偏见，在高明的医生看来是在毁坏人类的健康——几乎要对这惨痛的事欢欣鼓舞，因为他们可以拿这事情来佐证自己的偏见。

事实上，就是只为了这一个原因，让女性接受国民教育也具有极端的重要性。为了莫洛克的偏见，我们已经牺牲了多少人啊！而孩子们又因为大人们放荡的生活方式受到了多少伤害？有些女性因为男性的奉承而偏废了自己的责任，缺乏自然的感情；也有些女性极度无知，她们负责照顾的婴儿比幼兽的处境还不如。而男性却不愿意把女性放在一个合适的位置上，哪怕是为了让她们能有足够的理性去知道应该怎样照顾她们的孩子。

这个事实是如此的令我震撼，以至于我要将我推理的全部重心都放在这里，因为任何倾向于剥夺母性的事情，都将让女性不成其为女性。

假使孩子的身体没有受到父亲的罪恶的牵连，我也不敢指望时下这些软弱的母亲能够合理地照顾好孩子的身体，可这正是能让孩子们将来有个好体格的必要基础。我也不能期望她们可以明智地培养孩子的性情，让孩子在长大后不至于急于将母亲的言传身教都抛在脑后。母亲是孩子的第一任老师，除非孩子有非同寻常的意志力，否则他的性情里终生都将留下母亲愚昧思想的印记。母亲的弱点都将在孩子身上重现！只要女性被教导得要仰赖她们的丈夫去做决断，这就将是必然的结果。理性的提升不可半途而废，而没有任何人能够只通过模仿他人就变得有智慧。因为在人生的任何一种情境里，都需要根据具体情况去决定要如何应用基本原则。一个能够在某一方面进行合理思考的人，很快就能扩展他智识的领域，而能够在培养孩子上做出明智决断的女性，不会是非不分地服从于她的丈夫，也不会耐心地遵从社会法则做个无足轻重的妻子。

在公立学校里，女性可以免于无知的错误，可以学到基本的解剖学和医药学，这不但让她们可以照顾好自己的健康，也让她们可以成为自己的孩子、双亲以及丈夫的合格的护理员。那些对人体结构一无所知的老妇人，顽固地按照自己的方法给人开方治病，由于她们的错误，死亡人员的数量大大地增加了。同理，即使仅从家庭的角度考虑，也应该让女性了解基本的心理学知识，可以通过让两性共同学习所有的科目、引领她们观察人类的理性随着科学和艺术的进步而发展的过程，以及学习道德学和人类政治史，来达成这个学习的目的。

曾有人说一个人就是一个小型的宇宙；一个家庭也可以被认为是一个小型的国家。虽然大部分国家的管理手段确实都有辱人格，而由于缺乏公正的宪法和平等的法律，深谙世情的贤人们的观念也变得如此混乱，以至于他们对于努力争取人权的合理性都抱有疑虑。就这样，道德就像是在国家这个水库中受到了污染的水，它罪恶的支流腐蚀了政治肌体的各个部分。但是如果能够根据更高贵的，或者不如说是更加公正的原则来制定法律，那么社会就应该由法律来支配，而不是那些执行法律的人，如此一来，责任将可能成为个人行为的准则。

此外，女性通过锻炼她们的身体和思想，还将获得精神上的活力，这对于母亲来说是必不可少的素质。精神的活力需要与毅力相结合，毅力是行动上的坚定，与固守软弱的缺点完全不同。想要劝那些懒惰的人保持坚定是件危险的事情，因为他们立刻就会变得严苛，为了给自己减少麻烦而严厉地惩罚他人的过错。其实如果他们能够耐心坚毅地运用理性去处理问题，这些过错本来是可以避免的。

而坚毅是以有力的心智为前提条件的，而心智的力量是能在懒散的顺从里培养得出来的吗？是不努力做出判断而只问别人的意见就能得到的吗？是出于恐惧而顺从他人，而不去锻炼所有人都需要有的坚忍就能得来的吗？我想要推导出来的结论显而易见：让女性成为理性的生物和自由的公民，她们将很快变成好妻子和好母亲——当然，这也需要男性不再忽略他们作为丈夫和父亲的责任。

就像我所描绘的那样，我们可以合理地期待，将公共教育和私人教育的优势结合在一起的设想是可能出现的。我关于这个问题的讨论大部分都与女性相关，因为我认为女性受到了压迫。而压迫所导致的恶行已然产生，它并未局限于女性世界，而是已经传染了整个社会。所以我在希望看到我们女性成为更加有道德的人的时候，我的内心也因为期待那伟大事业能够得以发扬而跳动，而能够让我的期望成真的只有美德。

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

第十三章 由女性的无知所造成的一些愚蠢行为的例子；结束语：我们可以顺理成章地期待在女性风貌的变革中看到她们道德的进步

有许多蠢事在某种程度上都是只有女性才会做的——那些该做却不做和不该做却要做的、违背理性的罪恶，而这些都是无知或者偏见的结果，我指出这些罪恶，只是因为它们看起来会对女性的品行造成伤害。在批判她们的同时，我特别希望能够证明，男性出于各种动机竭力地想要使女性在心灵和身体上都继续保持软弱，可是这种软弱却会使她们无法完成女性所特有的责任：身体的虚弱让她们无法哺育自己的孩子，心灵的软弱则会败坏她们的性情——这是女性的一种自然状态吗？

第一节

有一个由无知所导致的著名的例子，值得我们注意，并且应当给予严厉的谴责。

在这个城市潜伏着许多像水蛭一样无耻的人，他们靠着利用女性的轻信生活，说着花言巧语假装可以通过占星术算命。有许多以自己的阶级和财富为傲的女性，自觉高高在上看不起下层阶级。可是她们轻信占星算命的行为，却表明这种阶层的划分毫无根据，她们的心灵没有受到过充分的教育可以去超越世俗的偏见。由于女性从未被引导着去将与自身责任相关的知识看作是必须知道的事情，或者通过履行责任的方式来过现世的生活，所以她们总是渴望能窥看未来，希望知道将会有什么能来增加她们生活的乐趣，打破无知带来的空虚。这些女士们，家中的女主人们，并不为坐着自己的马车去一个狡诈的男人的家门口而感到羞耻，请务必允许我严肃地忠告那些听信无聊谎话的夫人们。如果她们中的任何人读到了这本书，我请求她们发自内心地回答下面这些问题，别忘记上帝在看着她们：

你是否相信有且只有一个上帝，他强大有力、英明睿智、仁爱良善？

你是否相信他创造了一切，万物都依赖着他？

你是否依赖他的智慧，他的智慧在他创造的万物身上和你自己的身上都是如此的显而易见？你相信他将一切你不知道的事物也同样都安排得井井有条，符合他的设计吗？

你是否承认，预见未来以及看见那些虚空之物是造物主的特性？关于一些未来将会发生、但此时仍然被时间的帷幕所遮蔽的重大事件，如果他想要让它在他的创造物的灵魂上留下印记，那么他会将这灵光一闪的秘密泄露给谁呢？历经岁月的人们会这样回答这个问题——给值得尊敬的长者，给极其虔诚的人。

古代的神谕都是由神父传达的，他们宣誓侍奉上帝，被认为是受到了他的启迪。俗世里隆重的宗教仪式在这些骗子的周围渲染出耀眼的光辉，狡诈的政客对他们表示尊重，因为这些政客深知如何利用这个有利的工具令强者屈服于其奸狡的统治。这些都给神父们的谎言和恶行蒙上了一层圣洁神秘、不可侵犯的面纱。如果一位古代希腊或者罗马的贵妇，被这种庄严虔诚的表现所打动，在急于窥看未来或者想要探问一些悬而未决的事情的时候，去寻求神谕，那么她的询问虽然违背了理性，可是并不应该被看作是不虔诚的。可是，声称信仰基督教的人们可以避免这种错误吗？一个基督徒可以假定，那些上帝的宠儿、那些受到他最高恩宠的人，一定要把自己伪装起来去施行那种最不正当的骗术，去从那些愚昧的女性手中骗取穷苦人求之而不得的钱财吗？

不要说这些问题是对常识的侮辱，因为这就是你们自己的行为。唉，你们这些愚蠢的女人啊！你们的行为增加了人们对女性的厌恶！而且，这些思考应该能让你们为自己那有欠思量和有违理性的虔诚而感到恐慌，因为我并不认为你们所有人在走进那所神秘的房舍时，都将自己的宗教信仰放到了一边。然而，既然我一直都假定自己是在和一些无知的女性谈话（因为你们已经达到了“无知”这个词所表示的、最强烈的程度），那么我想要劝诫你们，试图知道上帝所隐藏的秘密是极端愚蠢的行为，是一件很荒谬的事情。

也许你们无法明白我试图向你们说明的这些东西：这种行为与让人类变得明智而又有德的、伟大的人生目标是完全相悖的，而且如果这是上帝所允许的，那么它会扰乱已然建立起来的宇宙万物的秩序，而如果它不是上帝所允许的，你指望你能听到事实的真相吗？如果事情是可以被预知的话，那些尚未成形以至于无法被凡人发现的事情，会被一个靠着欺骗愚蠢之人来满足自己私欲的、恶毒的凡人看到吗？

不过，也许你们是真心实意地信奉着这个魔鬼，并且为了转移问题，幻想着他会帮助自己的使徒？但是如果你们真的尊重这样一个与善良和上帝为敌之人的力量，你们还会在认为自己有义务去见他的同时，也仍然认为自己有义务去教堂吗？算命先生的这些骗术还可以很自然地过渡到那些催眠师所使用的、看上去更加时髦的骗术。说到催眠师，也同样应当问女性几个问题。

你们知道任何有关人体构造的知识吗？如果不知道的话，那么应该有人告诉你们每个孩子都该知道的事情：当完好的机体由于放纵或者懒惰而变得失常——我说的不是严重的紊乱，而是患上慢性疾病——那么它必须慢慢地回复到健康的状态。健康是上天赐予我们的无价之宝。如果生命机能没有受到重大损伤，那么养生法（也就是节制饮食）、居室通风、体育锻炼以及少量由了解人体的医生所开列的药物，是人类已经发现的唯一一种可以经得起考验的帮助恢复健康的方法。

这些催眠师靠着把戏和骗局假装做出了奇迹，你们能相信他们是上帝的使者吗？还是有魔鬼在帮助他们解决所有这一类的问题呢？

当他们像传说中的那样，将医药没有治愈的紊乱都赶跑了的时候，他们的行为是否符合理性？还是说，他们是借助了超自然的力量达到了这种神奇的疗效？

内行人也许会回答我说，人类可以通过某种方式与鬼神的世界沟通。我们必须要承认，那是一种高贵的特权。有些古代的人曾提到一些常见的鬼神，在危险临近之时通过一些友善的暗示保护他们免于危难（可是我们没办法猜测是以何种方式），或者是指点他们应当做些什么事情。然而那些声称享有这些超自然特权的人却坚称，这是对他们高尚的禁欲和虔诚的奖赏。但是现在这些创造奇迹的人并没有因为这超然的禁欲和圣洁而超越他们的同胞。他们治病不是出于对上帝的爱，而是为了钱。他们是江湖术士般的牧师，虽然确实还没有方便的手段将弥撒仪式出卖给炼狱中的灵魂，也没有教堂供他们可以展示他们的拐杖，或者一次触摸一句话就治愈了肢体疾病的范例。

我并不精通那些术语，也没有人向我传授过秘方，因此我说得也许并不恰当。但是很明显，那些不遵循理性的规律又不老老实实谋生的人，非常幸运地渐渐与这一类乐于助人的鬼神熟识了。事实上，我们不能承认他们具有非凡的判断力和善良，否则他们会在想要表现自己是人类仁善的朋友之时，选择一些更为高尚的手段。

不管怎么说，假装有这种能力的人简直是在亵渎神明。

天道的要旨在于，种下什么样的恶因就会长出什么样的恶果。在清醒理智的人看来，这是很明显的事情。会有任何如此粗暴地冒犯了上帝的智慧的人，能够像你们所想象的那样，被他允许做出那些打乱了他所设定的一般法则的奇迹吗？他会允许恢复那些放纵而无德之人的健康，只是为了能够让他们再去无所顾忌地追求同样的东西吗？耶稣曾说，做个纯粹的人，不要再犯下罪过。那些不追随上帝脚步、为了收买人心而去治愈人的肌体的人们，能创造出更伟大的奇迹吗？

我在提到那些可耻的骗子之后，又提到了基督的名字，这也许会让我的一些读者感到不快——我尊重他们的热情。但是，请这些读者不要忘记，那些骗术的使用者们也在假托他的名义，并且公开声称是他的门徒，可是从他们的所作所为我们就应该知道他们到底是上帝的孩子还是罪恶的仆人。我承认，触摸圣者的身体或者接受催眠，比克制我们的胃口、控制我们的激情更容易些，但是身体或者心灵的健康只能通过克制欲望和激情的方法才能恢复，否则的话，我们的最高审判者就会变得偏私和满心仇恨。

他是一个会因为仇恨就改变态度或者施加惩罚的凡人吗？理性告诉我们，他是我们共同的父亲，他给的伤都是为了治愈，我们行差踏错造就了某些后果，也因此而不得不看清了罪恶的本质。我们就是这样从经验中学会了辨别是非，我们获得的智慧越多，就越是爱憎分明。毒药里包含着解药：我们要么用圣典中最有力的言辞，帮助自己改正恶习，不再犯下败坏自己身体的罪过；要么接受作恶的惩罚，斩断生命的线索，早早夭亡。

我们的探问在此遇到了一个非常可怕的障碍——但是，我为何要隐藏我的情绪呢？考虑到上帝的神性，我相信无论何种随过错而来的惩罚，如疾病的痛苦，都是为了告诉我们恶行之恶，从而使我们改过自新。上帝的神性存在于他所创造的万物以及我们的理性之中，单纯的惩罚看起来是如此违背上帝的本性，以至于宁愿相信上帝未曾留意到人类的行为，也不愿相信在他的惩罚当中会没有改过自新的仁慈意图。

全知全能、力量无边的上帝，像他那样仁慈伟大的生灵，竟然会造出一种在预见了五六十年的疯狂生活之后，就坠入永无止境的苦难的生物，只是这样去想象，也是对上帝的亵渎。永不死去的蛆虫靠什么生活呢？靠愚蠢、靠无知，我说的就是你们——要是我能插一句话的话，我想说当我自然而然地得出了这个结论时，我感到愤怒而羞惭，我宁愿自己离开上帝的羽翼！我满怀敬畏地说，在这样的一个假设之下，上帝将是一团毁灭一切的火焰。当对他的恐惧吞没了对他的爱，当黑暗充满了他所有的劝诫，我们也会想要从他面前逃开，哪怕那根本就是徒劳。

我知道有许多虔诚的人都在夸耀自己全然地服从上帝的意旨，就像是服从至高无上的王权，他们的原则与印度人崇拜魔鬼的原则是一样的。换句话说，他们和那些为生活琐事操心的人有相似之处，他们确实崇拜权力，在那些能够将他们践踏在脚下的人面前低三下四。相反，合乎理性的宗教，是服从一位极其有智慧的人的意志，而他所有的意志一定都是出于正当的动机——都必然是合理的。

如果我们这样尊敬上帝，我们能够相信那些侮辱上帝的法则的诡秘暗示吗？虽然这些都是显而易见的事情，可我还是要问，我们能相信他会允许一个错误的奇迹存在，引起人们的迷惑吗？我们必须要么认可这些不敬的结论，要么蔑视一切能以超自然手段治愈疾病的诺言，以及那些对于只有上帝才能预知的事物的预言。

第二节

另一类女性性格软弱的例子，通常是由狭隘的教育所造成，这是一种对心灵的不切实际的扭曲，通常被恰当地称为是多愁善感。

女性由于无知而易受感情的支配，人们只教她们从爱情中寻求幸福、提升感官享受，关于激情她们抱持着一种形而上的观点，这让她们可耻地忽略了人生的责任，而且她们往往是由于这种所谓的高尚优雅而投身到了真正的罪恶之中。

这些女性很喜欢一些愚蠢的小说家编造出来的白日梦，这些小说家对于人类的天性几乎毫无了解，他们编造陈腐的故事、描绘俗丽的场景、述说一些多愁善感的词句，这不仅败坏了人们的品位，也同样使她们的心灵远离了生活的责任。我并没有提及理性，因为她们的理性从来没有被使用过，就像是火光的微粒广泛地存在于物质之中一样，理性那沉眠的力量也一直都存在，只是没能活跃起来。

实际上，女性被剥夺了所有的政治权益，而且，已婚女性除了在刑事案件中，并不被当作是公民。每个社会成员的个人责任如果不与公共总体的利益相结合，就会被执行得千疮百孔，可是女性的注意力很自然地就被从整个社会的利益转移到了琐事之上。女性一生之中最重要的事务就是取悦他人，而且由于政治和法律上的压迫，她们不能参与到更加重要的事务中去，于是多愁善感就成了大事，而且她们的胡思乱想常常超过了界限。如果理性能够在更大的范围里发挥作用的话，她们就能够克服这种缺点。

但是，她们被束缚在了琐碎的事务上，也就自然而然地吸收了那些专为这些天真轻浮的灵魂所写的读物中的观点。她们无法掌握任何重要的事情，所以会认为阅读史书非常枯燥，并且认为需要理性来阅读的专题文章令人难以容忍地乏味和几乎无法理解，这又有什么奇怪的呢？因此，她们必然会靠着那些小说家的作品来消遣时光。不过，我只在小说不能做到锻炼理性和规范想象的时候，才会反对它们。无论是读什么书，我认为读总比不读好，因为阅读总会多少调动到思考的能力，使精神在一定程度上得以拓展并获得一些力量。此外，即使是那些全然出于幻想的作品，也会给读者带来一些提高，超越了粗俗欲望的满足，让心灵不会再为此而感到快乐。

这些看法是从经验中得来的。我认识几位显要的女士，其中有一位尤其非常出色的女士——她已经达到了她那险隘的灵魂所能达到的最出色的程度了，她从不让她的三个女儿看小说。作为一位富有而时尚的女性，她请了很多教师来照料孩子，还有一些地位比较低微的家庭女教师注意她们的行为举止。孩子们从老师那里学会了如何用法语和意大利语说桌子、椅子以及其他的词语，但是，由于摆在她们面前的那些书远远超过了她们的理解力和她们对宗教的虔诚程度，所以她们既没能从中学到思想，也没有收获感情。在她们到达适婚年龄被带进社交界之前，她们要是没有被强迫着背诵书本，就是把时间都花在了穿衣打扮、互相争吵或者和自己的女仆讲悄悄话上。

她们的母亲是一位孀妇，此时正忙着维持人际关系，照她的说法，她得多认识些人，以免将来女儿们找不到合适的引路人可以进入上流社会。而这些年轻姑娘们，带着从任何意义上来讲都是庸俗的心灵以及被宠坏了的性情，开始了自命不凡的生活，她们看不起那些在服饰和排场上比不上她们的人。

关于爱情，老天或者说她们的保姆已经很小心地给她们讲解了她们这个词的自然含义。

而她们没什么话题可以谈论，又缺乏美好的感情，所以在她们可以就婚姻生活畅所欲言的时候，会用一些不怎么文雅的词句来表达自己粗俗的愿望。

这些女孩也受过小说的害吗？我差点忘了其中有个女孩在性格上有些问题：她伪装出一种近乎愚蠢的天真，会傻笑着谈论一些极不端庄的观点和问题，其实，她在与世隔绝的生活中已经明白了这些观点和问题的含义，却从不敢在严厉的母亲面前谈论它们。母亲感到很自豪，因而女儿们全都接受过最为出色的教育，在早餐前会诵读诗篇和寓言，从来不碰那些愚蠢的小说。

这仅仅是一个例子。而我还能记起许多其他女性，人们既没有系统地引导她们进行恰当的学习，也不允许她们自己做出选择，她们简直就是畸形生长的孩子。也有些人，因为混迹于社会，所以学到了一些所谓的常识。更确切地说，她们作为旁观者，对于司空见惯的事情能够提出清晰的观点，但是说到那种可以真正称得上是智慧的东西，那种掌握一般规律、理解抽象概念，或者是理解一些模棱两可事物的能力，她们根本就不具备。她们的心灵一片沉寂，在没有被一些会引发多愁善感情绪的事情或者其他类似的东西所触发的时候，她们就会情绪低落，要么哭哭啼啼，要么去睡懒觉。

所以，当我建议我的女性同胞们不要去读那些浅薄的作品时，我是在劝导她们去读一些真正的好书。在这一点上我和一位明智的男士所见略同，这位男士有一个女儿和一个侄女要照顾，他以非常不同的方式来教导她们。

她的侄女天赋超群，在他获得她的监护权以前，已然沉迷于阅读各种书籍。他尝试也确实引导她阅读了很多历史和道德方面的论著，可是他的女儿，被溺爱而软弱的母亲给惯坏了，对于任何需要努力的事情都感到厌烦，所以他允许她看小说。他为自己的行为辩护说：要是她能对读小说产生一些兴趣的话，他就能有一定的基础来教导她，错误的想法总比根本没想法要好。

实际上，女性的心智一直被完全地忽视，以至于只能从如此混浊的源泉中获得，直到一些有着超人天赋的女性，在阅读小说的过程中懂得了批判这类读物，她们才获得了自己的理性。

我相信，最能够用于纠正对于小说的沉迷的方法就是嘲笑这些读物。并不是要笼统地贬低，因为那样不会有什么作用，而是要由一位明智而且又富有幽默感的人，为年轻女孩读一些这类的作品，在格调方面，以及通过将之与悲壮的历史故事和英雄人物进行最恰当的对比，来为她们指出这类作品在刻画人性方面是多么的愚蠢滑稽，这样一来，正当的观点也许就会取代她们心中浪漫的感情。

然而，两性中的大多数在一个方面是相似的，并且都表现得缺乏品位和庄重。无知的女性为了名誉而不得不保持贞洁，所以只能让她们的想象驰骋在当代小说作家所描绘的、造作庸俗的情节之中。她们轻视历史中那些高贵严肃以及庄重优雅的女性形象，觉得这些人无趣乏味。而男性也有同样堕落的生活品位，远离了美德那朴实无华的美丽以及理性庄重的尊严，追求着放荡荒唐的乐趣。

此外，阅读小说使得女性，尤其是时尚的贵妇人们在谈话时非常喜欢使用强烈的语气和夸张的词句。虽然她们过着放荡虚伪的生活，让她们无法怀有任何强烈真实的情感，但是她们总能巧舌如簧地用矫揉造作的声调讲出热情的语言。每一个浪荡之人心中都能产生磷火，可是那只是心灵在黑暗中对于情感的火焰的一种模拟。

第三节

造物强化了弱者头脑中的无知愚昧和虚伪狡诈，这是出于一种自我保护的原则。它使女性热衷于服饰打扮，而这种爱好会自然催生出的虚荣心也全部都呈现出来了，已经超出了攀比争斗和慷慨宽容的限度。

我同意卢梭的观点，穿着打扮之中蕴含着取悦于人的肉体艺术。也是因为这个，我会让女孩们远离那种具有传染性的、对于服饰的热爱——这种爱好在软弱的女性之中非常常见——这样她们就不会沉迷于这种肉体的艺术。那些幻想着可以无须理性的助力便可以长久地取悦他人的女性（或者说她们以为取悦于人可以无须依靠道德的艺术）是软弱的。但是道德的艺术——如果我们把美德所产生的优雅称为是艺术，不算是一种不敬的话，并且如果人们是以美德本身而非其衍生的优雅为行为动机的话——是从来不会和愚昧无知并存的。两性之中那些最为放荡不羁的人们，都特别喜爱那种愚昧无知的嬉戏，这种嬉戏在本质上与从美德中所产生的、高尚的优雅有着巨大的差别。

人类对于外表装饰的强烈爱好在蛮荒时期就曾经出现过，不过那时只有男性装扮自己而女性则不会。现在，女性已经可以和男性一样地打扮自己，所以社会文明至少已经前进了一步。

我想由此我们可以看到，曾经被视为女性专属爱好的、对于穿着打扮的关注，在男女两性来说都是很自然的。但是我应该把自己的意思表达得更加明确一些：荒蛮时代，当心灵还没有被充分地打开到可以去接受思考的快乐的时候，人们就会特别注意装扮自己的身体，他们会将自己所追求的东西通过文身或者身体彩绘表达出来。

这种人类最初的爱好一直延续至今，以至于甚至是奴隶制度的沉重枷锁也无法磨灭这对于美的、最原始的渴望。那些黑色皮肤的英雄们从他们的父母双亲那里承袭了这样的渴望，他们常常将自己辛辛苦苦攒下的积蓄，花在一些廉价而俗丽的小装饰品上。我也很少看到一位善良的男仆或者女仆会对衣饰不感兴趣。他们的服饰就是他们的财产。以此类推，我认为在女性当中所盛行的、对于服饰的过度热爱，是出自于同样的原因——她们的心灵缺乏教化。男性见面会谈论工作、政治或者文学，但是，就像斯威夫特所说的那样：“女人们伸手去摸摸彼此的耳饰或者衣襟是多么自然的事情啊。”那的确非常自然——因为她们对工作没有兴趣，缺乏文学鉴赏力，认为政治枯燥乏味。这是因为，她们没有把思想转向能够提升人类种族和增进其共同幸福的伟大追求上，也没能因此而获得一种对于人类的爱。

此外，男性在想要追求权力和名声的时候，有许多偶然的机会以及可供选择的道路。同一行业的男性彼此竞争，很少成为朋友，可是他们和绝大多数其他男性不会发生冲突。但是女性之间相处的情形与此截然不同，她们彼此全都是竞争关系。

婚前，女性把取悦男性当作是自己的事业；婚后，除了少数例外，她们出于本能无比顽固地做着同样的事情。即使是那些富有德行的女性在与人交往的过程中也从来无法忘记自己的女性身份，因为她们总是在试图讨人喜欢。女性的美貌和男性的才华，看上去两性都同样地渴求着人们能够将注意力转移到他们自己的身上，而且当代的人们彼此仇视对方才貌的情形也是极为普遍的。

所以，当美貌成为女性唯一渴求的东西，并且因为这种渴求而增强了虚荣的力量，她们之间就会永无止境地争斗下去，这有什么可奇怪的？她们都在参加同一场比赛，如果彼此还能够不以一种怀疑甚至是嫉妒的眼光去看待对方的话，那她们必定是有着超凡入圣的德行。

对于打扮、享乐和权力的无节制的喜好，都是未经开化之人的欲望。这种欲望占据了那些野蛮人的头脑，他们还没能拓宽心灵的世界，甚至还没有掌握在思考中使用那种能够将抽象的思维整合在一起的必要的能力，有了这种能力人们才会有自己的原则。从女性的教育和她们文明生活的现状来看，我认为，她们也无可争议地处在与野蛮人相同的情形之下。所以，嘲笑她们，或者讥讽这些从来没有被允许按照自己的理性行事的人所做出来的傻事，不但荒谬而且残忍。那些被教导要盲目地服从于权威的人们，非常自然地就会也必然会极尽狡诈之能事去逃脱权威的控制。

如果我们可以证明女性应该绝对地服从于男性的话，那么我会立即同意女性的责任就是培养对于衣装打扮的爱好，以便取悦于人，并且培养狡猾的习性，以保全自己。

无论如何，被无知支撑的道德必然总是会摇摆不定的，就像是建在沙子上的房子经受不了风暴。这几乎是不证自明的事情。如果权威能让女性具有美德（这句话本身就自相矛盾），那就将她们禁闭在闺阁之中，并精心地监视着她们吧。无须担心她们的灵魂会获得坚强的意志——因为可以容忍如此对待的灵魂是由顺服做材料而制成的，它只能做到让肉身活着而已。

“太柔软的东西上，无法铭刻出恒久的印记，黑色、棕色或者白色最好区分。”

当然，再令人痛苦的伤口也会很快地愈合，而且女性能够生育，可以让这世界上一直会有人打扮好了去取悦男性——一些著名的作家认为，这就是女性被创造出来的全部意义。

第四节

人们认为女性比男性更加感情丰富，甚至更为仁慈，证据就是她们强烈的依恋以及瞬间发作的同情心。但是这种无知的、依附性的感情中几乎没有任何高贵的成分，并且在大多数时候会转化为自私，孩子和兽类的感情也是如此。我认识许多软弱的女性，她们把全部感情都投注在了自己的丈夫身上。可是在她们身上，仁慈之心实在非常薄弱，或者说她们只有转瞬即逝的同情。一位著名的演说家曾经说过：“仁慈不在于善感的耳朵，它存在于心灵和精神之中。”

虽然这种独占的情感会令人堕落，但是并不应当被作为是女性低劣的证据。因为它是狭隘视野的必然产物：即使是那些拥有卓越理性的女性，也将她们的精力投注到琐碎的小事和为个人的打算之中，除非是受到了爱情的鼓舞，否则她们也很少会具备英勇的精神，但是，具备英勇精神的爱情，就像天才一样，一世难求。所以，我同意有些道德家们的话，他们说：“女人很少像男人那样慷慨豁达。”她们常常为了自己狭隘的感情，而牺牲了正义和人性，这令女性明显地成为了低劣之人，尤其是当她们的感情全都是以男性为中心的时候。但是，我相信，如果她们没有从摇篮里就受到压抑的话，那么一旦理性获得了力量，女性的心灵也会随之开阔起来。

我知道，一些敏感和过分的软弱会带来对异性强烈的依恋，而理性却会令友情得到加强；因此，我承认男性之间比女性之间有着更多的友谊，男性也有更强烈的正义感。女性那种独占性的爱情看起来真的很像老加图对于他的国家的那种最不正义的爱。他希望摧毁迦太基，不是为了拯救罗马，而是想要为它增添虚幻的荣耀。简言之，女性和加图为了虚荣这样一个共同的原因而牺牲了自己的人性，因为真正的责任总是需要彼此互相支持的。

此外，当女性本身就是不公正的奴隶的时候，她们又如何能成为公正或者慷慨的人呢？

第五节

既然人们坚持认为养育子女、为下一代打下身心健康的基础，是女性特有的责任，那么让她们变得无能而愚蠢，就是违背事实常理的。我认为，她们的心灵可以也应该去接受更多的东西，否则她们将永远不会成为明智的母亲。许多男士致力于培育马匹，并且会亲自过问马厩的管理，可是很奇怪的是，他们竟然会如此的缺乏理性和情感，以至于认为在照管孩子上面花费任何心思都会降低他们的身份！可是已经有多少孩子，就是因为女性的无知而横死了呀！即便孩子们幸免于此，即使他们没有被不近人情的忽视或者盲目的宠溺所毁掉，可是又有几个孩子能够得到适合于幼小心灵的照管！孩子们的心灵就这样被毁掉了，他们在家里被宠坏了，于是被送进学校，可是学校所采取的教育方法，是为了能够让一大群孩子能够遵守秩序，它会把几乎所有罪恶的种子全部都播撒进那已被强力毁坏的土壤里。

孩子们如果受到了公正的管教的话，他们绝不会感觉到被束缚，我们也不应当总是束缚着他们。有时候我把这些可怜的孩子，比作一匹精力充沛的小马，我曾看到人们在海滩上想要驯服它，它绝望地蹦跳着，想要将骑手甩掉，却越来越深地陷入沙中，直到最后它郁郁寡欢地屈服了。

马是我很喜欢的一种动物，当我以友善而且一贯如一的方式去对待它们的时候，我发现它们总会表现得非常温顺，所以我怀疑那种用来驯服它们的暴力的方法，是否是太过委屈它们了。然而，我非常确信，当一个孩子被不恰当地宠坏了之后，我们绝不应该用驯马一样的方式强迫他们变得服从，因为任何一种有违正义和理性的、对待孩子的行为，都会削弱他们的理性。并且，以我的经验，孩子的性格成形很早，他们道德品质的基础在七岁之前就已经定型了，在这个时期女性被认为是照管孩子的唯一人选。通常，在这个阶段之后，教育的一半职责是要纠正错误，而且如果操之过急还会出现很多问题。可是如果孩子们的母亲能够有更多的理智的话，他们是根本不会习得这些错误的行为的。

女性愚蠢行为的另一个突出的例子绝不能不谈。她们在孩子面前对待仆人的态度，让孩子认为仆人就应该伺候他们并且忍受他们的脾气。孩子们应当学会，在任何时候都将来自某位男士或女士的帮助视为是一种恩惠。并且作为学习独立的第一课，他们应当以母亲作为榜样，在她的身教之下学习到，一个健康的人要求他人的照顾是可耻的。并且应该尽早让他们感知到人与人之间天然的平等，而不是教会他们摆出一个自大的神气。可实际上，我是多么经常地听到主妇傲慢地召唤仆人去侍候孩子们睡觉，却又一次次地把他们遣走，因为少爷小姐们总想在母亲身边多流连一会儿，我为此而感到愤怒。让仆人们像奴隶一样地伺候高高在上的孩子，他们会染上一切令人厌烦的坏脾气，这说明孩子已经被宠坏了。

简言之，大多数母亲都把孩子完全交给仆人照看，或者，因为他们是自己的子女，就把他们当作小神仙一样地看待。而我虽然经常看到女性把自己的子女看作是神一样地对待，可是她们却很少对仆人表现出一般的人道，对待他人的孩子也没有一点温柔。

无论如何，这些由无知而引起的、排他性的感情以及个人看待事物的方式，使得女性不能进步而只能一直保持在这样的状态，并且使得很多女性即使将自己的生命都奉献给了孩子也只是让孩子们身体虚弱、性情败坏。即使孩子们的父亲比较理智，可是他所采取的任何教育计划都会因此而受阻——除非能够与母亲达成一致，否则对子女施加管束的父亲只会被孩子们当作是一个暴君。

而且，一个身体健康的女性，可以在完成身为母亲的责任之余，仍然保持自己的外表得体整洁，并且在必要的情况下帮助丈夫赡养家庭，或者是通过阅读以及与两性友人平等的谈话来提高自己的心智。因为自然已经如此明智地安排好了万物的秩序，女性只要哺育自己的孩子，就能够保持自己的健康，而且从每个孩子出生之后到下一个孩子到来之间都会有相当的时间间隔，所以我们极少会看到一个有很多婴儿的家庭。并且，如果女性对于自己的行为有所规划，不将时间浪费在追求时尚衣饰的奇思妙想之上的话，那么管理家庭和孩子不会让她们无暇阅读文学作品，也不会妨碍她们为了加强自己的心智而坚定不移地去学习一门科学或者从事能够培养趣味的艺术活动。

但是，女性把她们的注意力从责任转移到了为炫耀衣饰而四处拜访、打牌和参加舞会之上，更不要说在晨间处理无聊的琐事。这让她们变得无足轻重，也让她们变得招人喜欢——按照这个词现在常用的意思来说，是招所有男性的喜欢，只除了她们自己的丈夫。在那一场欢愉之事里，并不需要有感情的存在，而且，虽然人们错误地以为这就是见世面，可是不要指望它能增进人的理性。这种缺乏真心的交往，成为了习惯，即使人们已经不再能从中感到欢乐，也仍然不可缺少，心灵却因此而变得冷硬，并且对于承担责任感到厌烦。

但是，在社会没能变得更加平等之前，在阶级消失、女性获得自由之前，我们无法看到那种高尚的家庭幸福，无知而受损的心灵无法体会这种质朴伟大的乐趣。除非人们不再将女性的外表看得比她们的心灵还要重要，否则她们也将无法恰当地开始行使她们教育子女的职责——盼望愚蠢无知的女性能够成为好母亲，就像指望莠草结出麦穗、荆棘丛里生出无花果一样。

第六节

不必我来提醒，聪明的读者们会知道我已经进入了总结回顾的部分，我在这一部分的讨论当中，只会点出一些简单的原则，以及辨清一些会令人迷惑的废话。但是，也不是所有读者都那么明智，所以我必须稍加解释，好让这个问题彻底地回到理性的路上来——我指的是那些有理性但是又懒惰的人们，他们轻易就会相信别人的观点，并且为了免去自己思考的麻烦还会顽固地坚持这些观点。

道德学家们一致认为，除非是在拥有自由的条件之下去培养美德，否则美德永远不会得到它应有的力量——他们这样说是针对于男性，而我将这个论点扩展到所有人类。我坚持认为，道德必须要在任何情况之下都建立在不可改变的原则之上，服从于理性之外的任何权威的人，都算不上是有理性的或者是有德行的人。

我认为，要想让女性成为真正有用的社会成员，就应当普遍地培养她们的理性，使她们在知识的基础上对国家产生出理智的热爱，原因很简单，我们不会对自己不理解的东西产生兴趣。为了使这种常识性的知识得到应有的重视，我已经努力地说明过：除非理性拓展了心灵，否则人们永远无法恰当地去承担自己的个人责任，而公德不过就是私德的总和而已。但是，社会中既定的阶级差异破坏了这二者的基础，把道德坚固的金锭捶打成了粉饰罪恶的金箔。当财富比美德更能让一个人得到尊敬，人们就会追逐财富先于美德；当女性因为外表而被宠爱、幼稚的傻笑表现着心灵的空虚之时，她们的心灵就会一片荒芜。但是，真正的感官享受一定是来源于心灵的——有什么能和建立在互敬基础上的互爱之情相提并论呢？那些出于欲望的、或冷漠、或狂热的爱抚算什么？和纯洁心灵以及高尚的想象之下所表现出来的端庄的爱慕之情相比，它不过是一种孕育着死亡的罪恶啊。是的，就让我来告诉富于幻想的浪荡子们，他们蔑视女性的理性，可是就是在他所鄙薄的、女性的心灵之中产生出了热烈的爱情，只有在这种爱中他们才能寻找到那种短暂而狂热的快乐！而且，不道德两性关系必定会断绝，就像是烛台上的牛油蜡烛，一旦燃尽就变得令人难以忍受地丑恶。为了证明这一点，我只需要指出，那些将一生中的大部分时光都用来和女性厮混的男子，他们迫切地渴望着在女性身上找到快乐，却也对她们怀有最为卑劣的看法。美德才是快乐真正的精华！如果有些愚蠢的人想要从这个世界上把美德给清除出去，好能够不受限制地放纵他们的欲望，那么，也会有一些有品位的好色之徒会从天堂再把它请回来，好为快乐增加一些美妙的趣味！

当今的女性由于无知而变得愚蠢和邪恶，我想这一点是无可争议的。我们可以期待从女性作风的变革中收获最为有助于人类提高的效果，在我们的讨论中这至少是有可能出现的。婚姻被称为是那种令人类脱离兽性的、令人欢喜的仁爱的本源，既然如此，那么财富、懒惰和愚蠢所造就出来的那种堕落的两性关系，对于道德所造成的全面性的损害，就要超过人类所有其他罪恶合在一起的作用。男性在婚前就与女性有了混乱的亲密关系，并且在这个过程中学会了将爱情当作一种自私的满足——不但把它与尊重分裂开来，还把它和那种建立在包含了一丝人性在内的、习惯性的感情也区分开来。于是，人们为了通奸的欲望，牺牲了他们最为神圣的责任。正义和友情也受到了挑战，还有那种趣味上的纯洁，本来会自然而然地引领着一个人去享受爱情那朴实无华的表露，而不是矫揉造作的姿态，如今也遭到了破坏。但是这种敢于不经修饰地表达出来的、高尚淳朴的爱情，虽然它是一种能够巩固婚姻纽带的魅力，可以保证夫妻之间温暖情意的结晶能够获得必要的父母之爱，但是对于浪荡子们却并没有什么吸引力。父母之间若无情谊，孩子是无法得到恰当的教养的。在不和睦的家庭里，不会有美德存在——只有一群魔鬼会住在那里。

如果夫妻两人的追求大不相同，他们在情感上就很难有共鸣，也很难在家庭中建立起足够的信任，在这样的情况下，他们之间不会有纯洁的爱情。那种能够产生温柔体贴的亲密关系，不会也不可能存在于两个邪恶的人之间。

因此，我坚持认为，男性所如此热烈拥护的性别差异是武断的。曾和我谈论过这个问题的几位明智的先生，都同意我已经详细论述过的、基于事实观察的观点是有根据的。简单地说，由于男性很少能够保持忠贞，并且因此而漠视端庄的美德，从而使两性都变得堕落。更进一步，端庄被认为是女性的特质，可是如果它得不到普遍的尊重，那么它将只能成为用来装扮放荡的精美面纱，而不是纯洁的自然反映。

我坚定地相信，女性大多数的愚蠢行为都来自于男性的专制。我承认在当下狡猾是女性性格的一部分，但我同样也要不遗余力地多次证明，这是由压迫所造成的。比如，不是有一批反对国教的人被确凿地描述成狡猾的人吗？通过强调这个事实，我难道不能证明，当理性之外的任何权力压制了人类的自由精神，人们就会使变得虚伪，开始自然而然地使用各种各样的手段？巴特勒对于反对国教者的讽刺促使我进行这样的思考：对礼仪的高度重视已经在某种程度上成为了人们的一种顾虑，随之而来的就是种种关于细节的幼稚忙乱和自以为是的一本正经，这令人们在行为和思想上都变得循规蹈矩、如出一辙。这是一种概括性的描述，因为我知道在各派教徒的身上有不少宝贵的人性特质。然而，我坚定地认为，就像女性对于她们的家庭所抱有的偏见一样，社会上的一些国教的反对派教徒之间也流行着对于他们的宗教的狭隘偏见，虽然他们在其他方面都是值得尊敬的。这些反对派教徒也像女性一样谨小慎微或者任性执着，而这两种行为会令他们的努力被人轻视。压迫使得反对派教徒在很多性格特征上都与人类被压迫的那一半人非常一致。他们就像女性一样，喜欢聚在一起谈话，征询彼此的意见，直到想出一些复杂的小伎俩，从而实现一些小目标。这难道不是大家都知道的事情吗？同样很明显的是，反对派教徒和女性群体对于保持名誉也有同等的重视，并且他们也是出于相似的原因才会这样做的。

在主张女性争取应当由她们与男性共享的那些权利的同时，我并没有试图为她们的错误找借口，我只是证明了那是她们所接受的教育和社会地位的自然结果。如果确实是这样的话，那么我们有理由认为，当她们在身体、道德和公民的意义上被允许成为自由人的时候，她们会改变自己的性格，并且纠正自己的罪过和愚行。

让女性分享权利，她们就会在品德上尽力向男性看齐，因为她们在得到解放之后，必须要成长得更加完美，否则就证明了将这样软弱的人和她们的责任绑缚在一起的权威是正当的。如果后者是对的，那么与俄国展开贩卖鞭子的新贸易就是有利的。鞭子是父亲在婚礼当日必须送给女婿的一件礼物，做丈夫的可以用它来保持自己的整个家庭秩序井然。他挥舞着这根权杖，成为家庭唯一的主人，他这样做不会破坏任何正义的权威，因为他是家中唯一有理性的人。理性的权力是宇宙的统治者赋予尘世中的男子的、神圣而不可废除的主宰权。如果我们认同这种情况，那么女性就没有任何固有权利可以伸张，同理，她们的义务也不复存在，因为权利和义务不可分割。

那么，你们这些有理性的男性还是公平些吧！不要比责备你们所喂养的驴马的恶习，更加苛责女性所做的错事。你们既然已经否认了她们具有理性的权利，那就要允许她们享有愚昧无知的特权，不然你们就是在期望在造物主没有赋予理性的生物身上看到美德，那样的话，你们真是比埃及的监工还要恶劣的人！

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

译者后记一

为什么要翻译这本书

“你为什么要翻译这本书？”基本上每个知道了我在翻译《为女权辩护》的人都会问上这么一句。这是个好问题。

我有些好奇，如果把“女权”二字替换成其他名词，是否我随口说出的一句话还会享有如此高的关注度？没办法，有些词，好像生来自带喷洒辣椒水的效果，只要出了场就不可能悄无声息地过去。具体到“女权”这两个字，虽然是在为女性争取权利，却常常是她们避之唯恐不及的标签，而男性的反应就更可观瞻了。我们不妨先来看一个例子。

《为女权辩护》是译言古登堡计划第七期“她的国，女性文学”系列中的一本。在这一期的宣传页面里，有位L君在评论中对选题提出了质疑：“这世界上那么多重要的文学作品，译言网偏要加大翻译女性文学。”如水入沸油，L君陷入了被围攻的境地，并顽强地进行了抵抗：

“那么多重要的文学题材，能够开阔中国人的视野、提升中国人的思想，为什么偏要汉化没有营养对社会没用的女权主义作品，你还嫌中国女人不够大女子主义？”

“自己内心龌龊还要扯上男人，证明你们这帮女权主义分子只是一帮仇男主义者……你们长的难看就算了，内心还卑劣……但是中国男人太老实可欺不会为自己申诉。”

“你说家庭暴力，哪个国家没有？欧美国家家庭暴力严重得多，只是别人不会当回事上新闻而已，有时候家庭暴力也是让家庭和平的无奈之举。”

L君的这些观点受到了好几位其他译言用户的反驳，在看这篇后记的你可能也会对它们皱眉，但是两方观点之间这样的力量对比仍然只会发生在特定的场景下和特定的人群里；一旦脱离了它们，观点之间的强弱对比可能立刻就会发生天翻地覆般的逆转。没营养、不重要、大女子主义、仇男、丑、心理变态、大家都这样怎么就你爱出风头非要搞个别的样子、讨论这个有什么用、你还有什么不满足的、爬到男人头上才够吗、再不听话就揍你、说这个除了会给自己找一堆麻烦以外什么好处也没有——这些才是我们每天都身处其间的那个世界里大多数人对于“女权”的回应，至少是直觉上的回应。

其实这种冲突与分裂，本身就意味着讨论的空间。我们无须严格地推理论证，只要粗略地想一想：一个话题，如果无论是这一半的人类，还是那一半的人类都会对它产生明显的，甚至是强烈的反应的话，它自然不可能真的是无足轻重的事情。是重要的事情，就值得我们花上些时间来认真地讨论。

而讨论问题，总要从定义问题开始。我曾问过自己：你所理解的“女权”是什么？你心中理想的两性之间的互动关系是怎样的？你可以为女性的权利做些什么？

一、先来看看我们身边这个真实的世界吧

在我给出自己的回答之前，我们不妨先来看看身边这个真实的世界。

我的一位同事，太太生了双胞胎，两个男孩。大家恭喜他，他确实喜，可也愁，因为：“男孩是建设银行，太费钱了，还是女孩好，招商银行。”可是转念又自我安慰：“女孩养大了就是别人家的人了，白养啊！”看，还未出生的孩子，已经被贴上了标签，并且十有八九也将被按照标签的样子塑造成人，几千年如一日。

说到标签，我就想起了自己的小时候。从上小学开始，一直到高中毕业前的最后一次模拟考试，总是会听到一些老师有意无意地在成绩稍微好一点的女生们耳边唠叨：别看你们现在成绩突出一些，可是男生只要一努力马上就会远远地超过你们，你们不可能再赶上来。就算他们不努力，你们再大几岁成绩也就不行了，因为女生的脑子就是不行——哦，亲爱的老师们，谢谢你们十几年如一日的这样另类的鼓励。

大学快要毕业的时候，我开始找工作。那些会注明不招女生的招聘广告就不提了，偏有一次我一路和各位面试官相谈甚欢地走到了大老板跟前，那阿姨和我在专业问题上倒也谈得酣畅淋漓，彼此都很开心，但最后她抛给我一个问题：如果因为你是女生，以后要生孩子，所以单位不愿意要你，怎么办？我想她未必真的不想要我，否则不必有此一问。可那是我第一次真真切切地感受到，在我所置身的这个世界里，性别对于一个人，除了意味着某些生理系统上的差异之外，还被与种种利益上的冲突牢牢地绑缚在了一起。

当然，女性这个身份还意味着我会有太多的机会——至少在我看来是比这个话题应得的关注要超过太多——要自愿或非自愿地与别人谈论感情和家庭一类的话题，因为“女人嘛，干得好不如嫁得好”。结婚被认为是女性一生之中最重要，甚至是唯一重要的事。跟婚姻相比，工作的首要意义是谈婚论嫁时的一个有利筹码，其次是顺便给自己挣点零花钱的生活点缀，总之，千万不要认真把它当事业了。这大概是我们这个社会为“女性”挂上的最顽固也是最显眼的标签了：女人不可能不想结婚、不想生孩子；女人结婚要赶早，晚了就不好生育了；过了一定的岁数还不结婚的女人，肯定是有毛病或者太丑或者太挑剔才没人要，被剩下来；女人结婚以后，尤其是生孩子以后，就会把心思全都放在家庭和孩子身上；女人只适合做做家务、管点儿小事，遇到大事还是要靠男人——悦目、柔顺、子宫，仿佛这就是女人身上所有值得关注和褒扬的东西，就是她们存在于这世上的全部原因。

有鉴于此，所以“大龄剩女”们无论愿意与否，通常都无法回避一种名为“相亲”的社交活动。我的一个朋友，是个明理而文雅的姑娘，因为过了所谓的“适婚年龄”，扛不住父母的焦虑，被赶去相亲。开始，有人给她介绍一个男孩，先说此人最不喜欢拜金的女生，也还没有买房与车，目前在民营企业工作。朋友恰好并不看重这些，于是坦然赴约。那次见面之后，男生向介绍人表示说两人不合适。介绍人问原因，答曰“这个女生不太好驾驭”。朋友听得介绍人转述这“驾驭”二字，哭笑不得，这位仁兄是立志要找一个出门瞬间变身现代女性挣钱养家、回家立时穿越回一千年前谨守三从四德的姑娘吗？可偏偏相亲活动参加多了，她渐渐发现原来对于相亲对象有这一款“你要拿我当宇宙中心、随我心意和需求任意变化”型期待的男生其实不在少数。

这些事情都发生在我的身边、眼前，无论它们能引起多少人的共鸣，也难免会被质疑是过于个人化的经验，不具有普遍性。所以我们有必要再将视角放大到全体女性的层面上去。

在200年之前（当然也包括更早些时候的数千年岁月），几乎全世界的女性都要通过缔结一段婚姻来“养活”自己——就算她婚后每日都从早到晚辛勤劳作，也仍然是“被人养活”的那一个。要是不想结婚，那么她基本上只有在修道院或者尼庵里才有可能找到一点清净安稳的立锥之地。

1912年，辛亥革命已经在前一年取得成功，可是那些曾经与男子一道为革命舍生忘死的辛亥女杰们，还在经历着一场独属于她们的战争，她们在为了将女性的参政权利及平等地位写入《临时约法》而继续努力。1920年，美国女性在奋斗了将近一百年后终于全面赢得了选举权。这个时间比黑人男性在南北战争之后获得选举权的时间还要晚半个世纪。2011年，埃及解放广场革命期间，女性和男性一同为了争取社会进步而不吝于献出自己的热血乃至生命。可是无论是当权者还是反对派，都不乏有人可耻地以性暴力为手段恐吓女性，想要将她们再度“赶回到家中去”。在情况最严重的时候，解放广场上一天之内会发生数十起群体性侵犯罪，甚而祸延前来采访的外国女性记者。在争取社会进步的道路上，与男性相比，女性要走的路总是更加艰难与漫长。

1883年，乳胶安全套面世。1960年，避孕药在美国正式被食品和药品管理局核准生产。1973年，美国最高法院第一次裁定堕胎是女性与医生之间的决定，包括丈夫在内的其他任何人无权干涉，而时至今日，堕胎是否合法在很多国家仍然是一场旷日持久的拉锯战。科技的进步，使得女性在理论上已经有可能自主地决定生育的时间和次数，将性与生育分离开来。但是，在种族繁衍和所谓的家庭观念的名义之下，女性支配自己身体的权利，时至今日仍然不能免于普遍地被他人和公权侵犯。

再看两则就发生在我们翻译此书过程中的事情。

2012年10月9日，在巴基斯坦斯瓦特地区，两名巴基斯坦塔利班组织的枪手拦截并闯入了一辆高中校车，向时年十五岁的女孩马拉拉的脸颊和颈部连开两枪，又打伤了她身边的另外两名女学生。马拉拉自2009年巴基斯坦塔利班组织控制了斯瓦特地区开始，就匿名在BBC网站上撰写博客，讲述人们在极右翼伊斯兰组织控制之下的生活。塔利班禁止女性接受教育，而马拉拉不但自己坚持上学，还公开倡导女性有接受教育的基本权利，这就是她遭受枪击的原因。马拉拉幸运地活了下来，但是塔利班扬言要继续追杀她。

2012年12月16日，发生在印度首都新德里的“黑公交轮奸案”震惊世界，受害者Jyoti Singh Pandey因遭到轮奸和殴打而不治去世，时年二十三岁。她的遭遇引发了民众的强烈反应，也将印度这个世界人口第二大国最丑陋的疮疤曝露在世人眼前。有新闻报道称，在印度平均每22分钟就会发生一起强奸案，国家司法系统在审理此类案件时效率极端低下，量刑也非常轻微。事后，议员辛格哈尔曾就此事致信班瓦利州州长，要求该州学校禁止女生穿裙子，称此举将可减少类似事件的发生。而印度社会主义党领导人穆拉亚姆-辛格-亚达夫，则在谈到三个因两次犯下轮奸案而被判处死刑的罪犯时，称他们只是“犯错的男孩”，并认为法庭对他们量刑过重，应当谋求修改相关的法律。在强奸类暴力犯罪面前，即使有如此强烈的本国民意与如此广泛的国际关注作为背景，即使是在当代政客这样讲究基本的政治正确的群体当中，像辛格哈尔和亚达夫一样企图颠倒黑白，公开为施暴者开脱、置受害者权益于不顾的人，也绝非罕见。

生存与人身安全是人类最基本的需求，接受教育使得人类精神的成长和发展成为可能，这两者一道，成为文明社会中人之所以为人的必要条件。掳夺他人的这两种权利，无异于否定其作为人的身份，将其隔绝在人类的范围之外。马拉拉和Jyoti Singh Pandey所遭遇的就是这样可怕的事情。而比这更加可怕的是，她们的经历绝非孤例。在这个广大的世界上，无论有无宗教信仰、无论意识形态、无论经济是否发达、无论文明发展程度，身处在不同社会中的女性，她们所面临的压制和不友好、她们明明生而为人却被物化为男性和家族财产的窘境，更多地只是在程度和表现形式上有所不同，而并无本质上的差别。

我曾看到过这样一种说法：妇女被压迫，是人类社会的不平等现象之中时间最长久、范围最广泛的一种。信然。而这确实就是我们的母亲、姐妹、爱人、朋友、女儿，甚至也就是我们自己，在每一天里所要面对的、最真实的世界。

二、那并不仅仅只是女性的问题

女性受到了不公正的待遇，可是因为这不公正而受到损害的人绝非只有女性。这首先是因为，对一种不公正的容忍，很容易就会成为另一种不公正存在的理由，以至于到最后没有人可以真正地置身事外。

鲁迅先生在《灯下漫笔》中对这样的世界早有精到的描述：“……人们各各分离，遂不能再感到别人的痛苦，并且因为自己各有奴使别人、吃掉别人的希望，便也就忘却自己同有被奴使、被吃掉的将来。于是大小无数的人肉的筵宴，即从有文明以来一直排到现在，人们就在这会场中吃人，被吃，以凶人的愚妄的欢呼，将悲惨的弱者的呼号遮掩，更不消说女人和小儿。”从这个意义上来讲，女性所受到的不公正的待遇正是所有不公正现象中的一种；提倡“女权”，反对那些加诸于女性身上的不公正，与其他任何争取人类合理合法权利的主张并无本质上的不同，因而也不应受到两种截然不同的待遇。

以上是这种不平等对于整个社会的影响，具体到每一个人的生活，这样做虽然看似是在给予男性一些特权，但却并不会为他们带来任何真正的好处。玛丽在本书中对于女性教育问题的论述已经清楚地表明，如果我们只是按照“悦目、柔顺、子宫”这样的原则去教养和要求女性，那么她们就无法成长为身体强健、人格健全的成年人，从而也无法成为合格的伴侣和母亲——她们的整个家庭都将为了她们所接受的那种、以愚人为目的的教育而付出代价：

她们没有被教导过要如何合理地规划任务和解决问题，所以既不懂得如何做出选择，也不懂得要为自己的决定负责任。她们没有被示范过如何建立真挚的感情，所以在选择伴侣、建立家庭的时候就会把利益作为第一甚至是唯一的考虑。她们不被允许承担重要的事情，甚至不能做那些与自己息息相关的决定，所以会忙于施展各种斤斤计较的手段和心机来扩展自己的利益，家庭、职场，甚至任何的社会交往，在她们眼中都不过是一场又一场权力的零和游戏。她们被物化为操持家务和传宗接代的工具，所以不知道要如何给予自己的爱人那种灵魂相通、心意相属的情感的力量。她们自己缺乏理性与智慧，所以也无力教养出理智而聪慧的孩子。

女性的堕落，必然意味着男性的堕落；女性所遭受的损害，也必然会让全体人类为之付出代价。

三、这是我的回答

“女权”看起来与“男权”太相似又太对立，所以人们难免会基于现在这个世界里那些令人不快的情形，而对它产生出不够友善的联想，比如觉得“女权”得彰的世界就是女性掌握权力、男性遭受压迫的世界。可实际上，在我看来，“男权社会”之“权”，乃是“权力”之“权”，而“女权主张”之“权”，则是“权利”之“权”。对于“女权”的主张，是要使女性能够被当作是与男性同等的人类、与男性彼此平等的权利，是女性掌控自己的身体和生活、不被物化为他人财产的权利，而不是要在拿回本应属于自己的权利之后，还要反过来再去剥夺别人、将自己所遭受过的损害再加诸于他人身上。

而我所希望看到的两性关系，则无论是在社会生活中还是家庭生活中，两性都能够摆脱过去那种一头扎进小泥潭里内斗的旧模式，成为互相尊重、彼此平等，也最为可靠的合作伙伴，一起去面对这个广大的世界。我希望成人不再试图不加辨别地将所有的孩子都塑造为符合标签的套中之人，而是能够根据孩子们的天赋和兴趣给予他们合理而明智的引导。我希望人们在选择人生伴侣的时候，不再需要以资源或者繁衍的需求作为决定性的要素，而是懂得也可以去寻找真正心灵相通的朋友、互信互助的伙伴。我希望家庭能够带给所有成员真正的欢乐和温暖，社会能够容许那些相对不够主流的人们生活得更加从容。在达成这个憧憬之前，我们还要走过很长的路，面对很多的误解，经历很多的论辩。所以我选择翻译这本书，因为我认同和尊重玛丽的智慧、勇气以及她绝大部分的观点，我希望她的真知灼见能够被更多的人所知道和了解，也帮助人们渐渐厘清自己思维中的误区和盲区。

翻译这本书，是我对过去生活的一个纪念，我将那些来自于生活的感受、观点、迷思都借此来做一个小结。它也将是照向我未来道路的一盏灯火，从今往后，我选择把自己对于“女权”的理解和观点，摆在阳光之下，不再惧怕与人谈论和探讨，也不再惧怕面对那些很可能会随之而来的不解、嘲弄，甚至是敌视。

我知道，我能做的实在太有限，它毫不宏大，它面对强大的传统微渺如沧海一粟，可是它会令我付出代价、承受压力，却可能根本得不到相称的回报，但我还是要坚持下去，因为，我愿意为了那个自己想要的世界献出我微薄的力量。

本书译者 常莹

2014年4月

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

译者后记二

参与《为女权辩护》的翻译，机缘是朋友的抱怨。朋友是译言的资深译者，当时翻译了夏洛特·吉尔曼讲述一个只有女性的世界的幻想小说《她的国》，还推荐译言组织了一期女性文学专题，也就是古登堡计划的第七期“她的国”，《为女权辩护》也收录其中。没想到，专题计划刚推出，就引起了争论，有人评论：“那么多重要的文学题材，能够开阔中国人的视野、提升中国人的思想，为什么偏要汉化没有营养对社会没用的女权主义作品……”朋友对此自然是义愤填膺。这一类观点恰恰说明，这样的专题不是太多而是太少，人们对“女权主义”一词的误会也还太深。我听她说了此事，并看到她为之努力，写文章、接受译言的访谈，自己也深受触动，决定参与相关专题的翻译。

我会选择《为女权辩护》这本书，首先是因为曾经读过商务印书馆1995年版“汉译世界学术名著丛书”中的《女权辩护·妇女的屈从地位》，那个译本有些艰深，中学时的自己根本就没有看完。后来中央编译出版社虽然又有过一个比较通俗的版本，但只是选译而非全本。我问过不少对性别问题感兴趣的朋友，他们几乎都没有读过或读完这本书。作为一本不仅是影响了性别平等的发展，更被公认为影响人类历史进程的著作，它实在应该拥有更多的华语读者。

这本书或许也有助于视“女权主义”为洪水猛兽的人破除这样的偏见，因为作者写作的年代，根本还没有“女权主义”(feminism)这个词语，她所使用的说法是“女性的权利”(rights of women)，所谈的也是教育、婚姻、生活中最常见的那些对两性的区别对待，及其造成的对男女双方的恶果。而“女权主义”追认玛丽·沃斯通克拉夫特为先驱，也因为这种种基本“权利”的不平等，正是女权主义的出发点。“男权/父权社会”指的是男性享有特权和主宰的社会，而“女权主义”是对这种不平等的反抗，批判特权、提倡平等权利，而非反过来建立女性的特权。“女权”的“权”是“权利”(rights)的“权”，指的是平等的人权、是人的基本权利，而不是指“权力”(power)或者特权。

也许因为政治权力斗争的漫长历史，中国人对“权”这个字分外敏感，很容易联想到你死我活的权力，而不是自由平等的权利，据说这也是一部分学者使用“女性主义”来翻译feminism的原因。当然，“女权主义”随后作为一种政治/社会运动以及学术思潮，因为不同时代、地域及参与者的特点，而有了种种不同的流派，甚至互相冲突的见解。但是回到最初，在《为女权辩护》写作的年代，作者仅仅是从一种非常朴素的理性立场出发，质问这个社会：“当男性为他们的自由而斗争、在关于他们自己幸福的问题上，能够做出他们自己的判断时，压制女性是不是自相矛盾和不公平的呢？”无论如何，我希望误会“女权主义=大女子主义”的人，能够在读过这本书之后，意识到女性所要求的，不过是“和男性一样被当作有理性的人来看待”。也希望那些宣称“人权问题比女权问题重要”的人，意识到这种说法对女性的贬低。

翻译这本书，对我而言是学习的机会，也是很大的挑战。翻译过程中我不断为作者的妙语打动，更深深感到作者指出的许多当时的、法国或英国的问题，却也同样是今天的、中国的问题。这些精彩的洞见，相信读者也会在书中发觉。而我在开始翻译此书后不久，又有了另一个工作，负责一份关注华语区当下性/别运动发展的电子刊物《酷拉时报》，加上自己的研究生学业、助教的工作等，时间非常紧张。多亏项目负责人常莹不断耐心地鼓励我，协调统筹大家的时间，书稿才得以最终完成。另一位合作译者刘荻更是怀着身孕工作，让一个可爱的新生命随着译稿诞生，翻译中分享宝宝的成长，给我们很多欢乐和鼓舞。这本书写于200多年前，英语句法比较复杂，文风又多变，翻译起来格外不易。我们三位业余的译者共同努力，也花费了比原本想象的长得多的时间，才完成译稿。其中，第一章到第三章、第十二章及最难的项目协调统筹工作，是常莹完成的；刘荻完成了最多的章节，包括前言、第六章到第十一章及第十三章；而我翻译了作者小传、比较长的第四章和第五章，并为全书做了注释。我们也共同进行了多次交叉校对和全文通读，希望能够尽可能减少翻译中的纰漏。

在200多年前，玛丽·沃斯通克拉夫特作为“一介女流”能够得到主流知识界的承认，并使《为女权辩护》成为对社会影响深远的畅销书，和她的博学多识、文采斐然有很大的关系。我暗暗希望自己能够还原她的才华，因此努力发挥自己作为历史专业学生的考据癖，对她每一个引经据典之处，都尽可能地注明出处。尤其是她对同时代流行作家的引用，以及作为一个基督教徒对于《圣经》的处处化用，都充分体现了此书写作的背景，和作者观点的脉络。虽然我业余的翻译未必能够胜过前贤，但希望新增的大量注释，可以作为对之前两个译本的补充，令读者更好地了解作者、了解此书的价值。

最后，感谢译言提供平台让我们能够分享美好的智慧，感谢这两年合作中始终鼓励我并教给年纪较轻的我很多经验的常莹、刘荻，感谢所有为本书的最终完成付出辛劳的工作人员！

本书译者 典典

2014年6月 于穗禾苑

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

A BRIEF SKETCH OF THE LIFE OF MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT.

M. Wollstonecraft was born in 1759. Her father was so great a wanderer, that the place of her birth is uncertain; she supposed, however, it was London, or Epping Forest: at the latter place she spent the first five years of her life. In early youth she exhibited traces of exquisite sensibility, soundness of understanding, and decision of character; but her father being a despot in his family, and her mother one of his subjects, Mary, derived little benefit from their parental training. She received no literary instructions but such as were to be had in ordinary day schools. Before her sixteenth year she became acquainted with Mr. Clare a clergyman, and Miss Frances Blood; the latter, two years older than herself; who possessing good taste and some knowledge of the fine arts, seems to have given the first impulse to the formation of her character. At the age of nineteen, she left her parents, and resided with a Mrs. Dawson for two years; when she returned to the parental roof to give attention to her mother, whose ill health made her presence necessary. On the death of her mother, Mary bade a final adieu to her father's house, and became the inmate of F. Blood; thus situated, their intimacy increased, and a strong attachment was reciprocated. In 1783 she commenced a day school at Newington green, in conjunction with her friend, F. Blood. At this place she became acquainted with Dr. Price, to whom she became strongly attached; the regard was mutual.

It is said that she became a teacher from motives of benevolence, or rather philanthropy, and during the time she continued in the profession, she gave proof of superior qualification for the performance of its arduous and important duties. Her friend and coadjutor married and removed to Lisbon, in Portugal, where she died of a pulmonary disease; the symptoms of which were visible before her marriage. So true was Mary's attachment to her, that she entrusted her school to the care of others, for the purpose of attending Frances in her closing scene. She aided, as did Dr. Young, in "Stealing Narcissa a grave." Her mind was expanded by this residence in a foreign country, and though clear of religious bigotry before, she took some instructive lessons on the evils of superstition, and intolerance.

On her return she found the school had suffered by her absence, and having previously decided to apply herself to literature, she now resolved to commence. In 1787 she made, or received, proposals from Johnson, a publisher in London, who was already acquainted with her talents as an author. During the three subsequent years, she was actively engaged, more in translating, condensing, and compiling, than in the production of original works. At this time she laboured under much depression of spirits, for the loss of her friend; this rather increased, perhaps, by the publication of "Mary, a novel," which was mostly composed of incidents and reflections connected with their intimacy.

The pecuniary concerns of her father becoming embarrassed, Mary practised a rigid economy in her expenditures, and with her savings was enabled to procure her sisters and brothers situations, to which without her aid, they could not have had access; her father was sustained at length from her funds; she even found means to take under her protection an orphan child.

She had acquired a facility in the arrangement and expression of thoughts, in her avocation of translator, and compiler, which was no doubt of great use to her afterward. It was not long until she had occasion for them. The eminent Burke produced his celebrated "Reflections on the Revolution in France." Mary full of sentiments of liberty, and indignant at what she thought subversive of it, seized her pen and produced the first attack upon that famous work. It succeeded well, for though intemperate and contemptuous, it was vehemently and impetuously eloquent; and though Burke was beloved by the enlightened friends of freedom, they were dissatisfied and disgusted with what they deemed an outrage upon it.

It is said that Mary, had not wanted confidence in her own powers before, but the reception this work met from the public, gave her an opportunity of judging what those powers were, in the estimation of others. It was shortly after this, that she commenced the work to which these remarks are prefixed. What are its merits will be decided in the judgment of each reader; suffice it to say she appears to have stept forth boldly, and singly, in defence of that half of the human race, which by the usages of all society, whether savage or civilized, have been kept from attaining their proper dignity—their equal rank as rational beings. It would appear that the disguise used in placing on woman the silken fetters which bribed her into endurance, and even love of slavery, but increased the opposition of our authoress: she would have had more patience with rude, brute coercion, than with that imposing gallantry, which, while it affects to consider woman as the pride, and ornament of creation, degrades her to a toy—an appendage—a cypher. The work was much reprehended, and as might well be expected, found its greatest enemies in the pretty soft creatures—the spoiled children of her own sex. She accomplished it in six weeks.

In 1792 she removed to Paris, where she became acquainted with Gilbert Imlay, of the United States. And from this acquaintance grew an attachment, which brought the parties together, without legal formalities, to which she objected on account of some family embarrassments, in which he would thereby become involved. The engagement was however considered by her of the most sacred nature, and they formed the plan of emigrating to America, where they should be enabled to accomplish it. These were the days of Robespierrean cruelty, and Imlay left Paris for Havre, whither after a time Mary followed him. They continued to reside there, until he left Havre for London, under pretence of business, and with a promise of rejoining her soon at Paris, which however he did not, but in 1795 sent for her to London. In the mean time she had become the mother of a female child, whom she called Frances in commemoration of her early friendship.

Before she went to England, she had some gloomy forebodings that the affections of Imlay, had waned, if they were not estranged from her; on her arrival, those forebodings were sorrowfully confirmed. His attentions were too formal and constrained to pass unobserved by her penetration, and though he ascribed his manner, and his absence, to business duties, she saw his affection for her was only something to be remembered. To use her own expression, "Love, dear delusion! Rigorous reason has forced me to resign; and now my rational prospects are blasted, just as I have learned to be contented with rational enjoyments." To pretend to depict her misery at this time would be futile; the best idea can be formed of it from the fact that she had planned her own destruction, from which Imlay prevented her. She conceived the idea of suicide a second time, and threw herself into the Thames; she remained in the water, until consciousness forsook her, but she was taken up and resuscitated. After divers attempts to revive the affections of Imlay, with sundry explanations and professions on his part, through the lapse of two years, she resolved finally to forgo all hope of reclaiming him, and endeavour to think of him no more in connexion with her future prospects. In this she succeeded so well, that she afterwards had a private interview with him, which did not produce any painful emotions.

In 1796 she revived or improved an acquaintance which commenced years before with Wm. Godwin, author of "Political Justice," and other works of great notoriety. Though they had not been favourably impressed with each other on their former acquaintance, they now met under circumstances which permitted a mutual and just appreciation of character. Their intimacy increased by regular and almost imperceptible degrees. The partiality they conceived for each other was, according to her biographer, "In the most refined style of love. It grew with equal advances in the mind of each. It would have been impossible for the most minute observer to have said who was before, or who after. One sex did not take the priority which long established custom has awarded it, nor the other overstep that delicacy which is so severely imposed. Neither party could assume to have been the agent or the patient, the toil-spreader or the prey in the affair. When in the course of things the disclosure came, there was nothing in a manner for either to disclose to the other."

Mary lived but a few months after her marriage, and died in child-bed; having given birth to a daughter who is now known to the literary world as Mrs. Shelly, the widow of Percy Bysche Shelly.

We can scarcely avoid regret that one of such splendid talents, and high toned feelings, should, after the former seemed to have been fully developed, and the latter had found an object in whom they might repose, after their eccentric and painful efforts to find a resting place—that such an one should at such a time, be cut off from life is something which we cannot contemplate without feeling regret; we can scarcely repress the murmur that she had not been removed ere clouds darkened her horizon, or that she had remained to witness the brightness and serenity which might have succeeded. But thus it is; we may trace the cause to anti-social arrangements; it is not individuals but society which must change it, and that not by enactments, but by a change in public opinion.

The authoress of the "Rights of Woman," was born April 1759, died

September 1797.

That there may be no doubt regarding the facts in this sketch, they are taken from a memoir written by her afflicted husband. In addition to many kind things he has said of her, (he was not blinded to imperfections in her character) is, that she was "Lovely in her person, and in the best and most engaging sense feminine in her manners."

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

TO M. TALLEYRAND PERIGORD, LATE BISHOP OF AUTUN.

Sir:—

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consider, Sir, dispassionately, these observations, for a glimpse of this truth seemed to open before you when you observed, "that to see one half of the human race excluded by the other from all participation of government, was a political phenomenon that, according to abstract principles, it was impossible to explain." If so, on what does your constitution rest? If the abstract rights of man will bear discussion and explanation, those of woman, by a parity of reasoning, will not shrink from the same test: though a different opinion prevails in this country, built on the very arguments which you use to justify the oppression of woman, prescription.

Consider, I address you as a legislator, whether, when men contend for their freedom, and to be allowed to judge for themselves, respecting their own happiness, it be not inconsistent and unjust to subjugate women, even though you firmly believe that you are acting in the manner best calculated to promote their happiness? Who made man the exclusive judge, if woman partake with him the gift of reason?

In this style, argue tyrants of every denomination from the weak king to the weak father of a family; they are all eager to crush reason; yet always assert that they usurp its throne only to be useful. Do you not act a similar part, when you FORCE all women, by denying them civil and political rights, to remain immured in their families groping in the dark? For surely, sir, you will not assert, that a duty can be binding which is not founded on reason? If, indeed, this be their destination, arguments may be drawn from reason; and thus augustly supported, the more understanding women acquire, the more they will be attached to their duty, comprehending it, for unless they comprehend it, unless their morals be fixed on the same immutable principles as those of man, no authority can make them discharge it in a virtuous manner. They may be convenient slaves, but slavery will have its constant effect, degrading the master and the abject dependent.

But, if women are to be excluded, without having a voice, from a participation of the natural rights of mankind, prove first, to ward off the charge of injustice and inconsistency, that they want reason, else this flaw in your NEW CONSTITUTION, the first constitution founded on reason, will ever show that man must, in some shape, act like a tyrant, and tyranny, in whatever part of society it rears its brazen front, will ever undermine morality.

I have repeatedly asserted, and produced what appeared to me irrefragable arguments drawn from matters of fact, to prove my assertion, that women cannot, by force, be confined to domestic concerns; for they will however ignorant, intermeddle with more weighty affairs, neglecting private duties only to disturb, by cunning tricks, the orderly plans of reason which rise above their comprehension.

Besides, whilst they are only made to acquire personal accomplishments, men will seek for pleasure in variety, and faithless husbands will make faithless wives; such ignorant beings, indeed, will be very excusable when, not taught to respect public good, nor allowed any civil right, they attempt to do themselves justice by retaliation.

The box of mischief thus opened in society, what is to preserve private virtue, the only security of public freedom and universal happiness?

Let there be then no coercion ESTABLISHED in society, and the common law of gravity prevailing, the sexes will fall into their proper places. And, now that more equitable laws are forming your citizens, marriage may become more sacred; your young men may choose wives from motives of affection, and your maidens allow love to root out vanity.

The father of a family will not then weaken his constitution and debase his sentiments, by visiting the harlot, nor forget, in obeying the call of appetite, the purpose for which it was implanted; and the mother will not neglect her children to practise the arts of coquetry, when sense and modesty secure her the friendship of her husband.

But, till men become attentive to the duty of a father, it is vain to expect women to spend that time in their nursery which they, "wise in their generation," choose to spend at their glass; for this exertion of cunning is only an instinct of nature to enable them to obtain indirectly a little of that power of which they are unjustly denied a share; for, if women are not permitted to enjoy legitimate rights, they will render both men and themselves vicious, to obtain illicit privileges.

I wish, sir, to set some investigations of this kind afloat in France; and should they lead to a confirmation of my principles, when your constitution is revised, the rights of woman may be respected, if it be fully proved that reason calls for this respect, and loudly demands JUSTICE for one half of the human race.

I am, sir,

Yours respectfully,

M. W.

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

INTRODUCTION.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a rough sketch of my plan; and should I express my conviction with the energetic emotions that I feel whenever I think of the subject, the dictates of experience and reflection will be felt by some of my readers. Animated by this important object, I shall disdain to cull my phrases or polish my style—I aim at being useful, and sincerity will render me unaffected; for wishing rather to persuade by the force of my arguments, than dazzle by the elegance of my language, I shall not waste my time in rounding periods, nor in fabricating the turgid bombast of artificial feelings, which, coming from the head, never reach the heart. I shall be employed about things, not words! and, anxious to render my sex more respectable members of society, I shall try to avoid that flowery diction which has slided from essays into novels, and from novels into familiar letters and conversation.

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

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

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

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

Women are, in fact, so much degraded by mistaken notions of female excellence, that I do not mean to add a paradox when I assert, that this artificial weakness produces a propensity to tyrannize, and gives birth to cunning, the natural opponent of strength, which leads them to play off those contemptible infantile airs that undermine esteem even whilst they excite desire. Do not foster these prejudices, and they will naturally fall into their subordinate, yet respectable station in life.

It seems scarcely necessary to say, that I now speak of the sex in general. Many individuals have more sense than their male relatives; and, as nothing preponderates where there is a constant struggle for an equilibrium, without it has naturally more gravity, some women govern their husbands without degrading themselves, because intellect will always govern.

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

CHAPTER 1. THE RIGHTS AND INVOLVED DUTIES OF MANKIND CONSIDERED.

In the present state of society, it appears necessary to go back to first principles in search of the most simple truths, and to dispute with some prevailing prejudice every inch of ground. To clear my way, I must be allowed to ask some plain questions, and the answers will probably appear as unequivocal as the axioms on which reasoning is built; though, when entangled with various motives of action, they are formally contradicted, either by the words or conduct of men.

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

The answer is as clear as that a half is less than the whole; in Reason.

What acquirement exalts one being above another? Virtue; we spontaneously reply.

For what purpose were the passions implanted? That man by struggling with them might attain a degree of knowledge denied to the brutes: whispers Experience.

Consequently the perfection of our nature and capability of happiness, must be estimated by the degree of reason, virtue, and knowledge, that distinguish the individual, and direct the laws which bind society: and that from the exercise of reason, knowledge and virtue naturally flow, is equally undeniable, if mankind be viewed collectively.

The rights and duties of man thus simplified, it seems almost impertinent to attempt to illustrate truths that appear so incontrovertible: yet such deeply rooted prejudices have clouded reason, and such spurious qualities have assumed the name of virtues, that it is necessary to pursue the course of reason as it has been perplexed and involved in error, by various adventitious circumstances, comparing the simple axiom with casual deviations.

Men, in general, seem to employ their reason to justify prejudices, which they have imbibed, they cannot trace how, rather than to root them out. The mind must be strong that resolutely forms its own principles; for a kind of intellectual cowardice prevails which makes many men shrink from the task, or only do it by halves. Yet the imperfect conclusions thus drawn, are frequently very plausible, because they are built on partial experience, on just, though narrow, views.

Going back to first principles, vice skulks, with all its native deformity, from close investigation; but a set of shallow reasoners are always exclaiming that these arguments prove too much, and that a measure rotten at the core may be expedient. Thus expediency is continually contrasted with simple principles, till truth is lost in a mist of words, virtue in forms, and knowledge rendered a sounding nothing, by the specious prejudices that assume its name.

That the society is formed in the wisest manner, whose constitution is founded on the nature of man, strikes, in the abstract, every thinking being so forcibly, that it looks like presumption to endeavour to bring forward proofs; though proof must be brought, or the strong hold of prescription will never be forced by reason; yet to urge prescription as an argument to justify the depriving men (or women) of their natural rights, is one of the absurd sophisms which daily insult common sense.

The civilization of the bulk of the people of Europe, is very partial; nay, it may be made a question, whether they have acquired any virtues in exchange for innocence, equivalent to the misery produced by the vices that have been plastered over unsightly ignorance, and the freedom which has been bartered for splendid slavery. The desire of dazzling by riches, the most certain pre-eminence that man can obtain, the pleasure of commanding flattering sycophants, and many other complicated low calculations of doting self-love, have all contributed to overwhelm the mass of mankind, and make liberty a convenient handle for mock patriotism. For whilst rank and titles are held of the utmost importance, before which Genius "must hide its diminished head," it is, with a few exceptions, very unfortunate for a nation when a man of abilities, without rank or property, pushes himself forward to notice. Alas! what unheard of misery have thousands suffered to purchase a cardinal's hat for an intriguing obscure adventurer, who longed to be ranked with princes, or lord it over them by seizing the triple crown!

Such, indeed, has been the wretchedness that has flowed from hereditary honours, riches, and monarchy, that men of lively sensibility have almost uttered blasphemy in order to justify the dispensations of providence. Man has been held out as independent of his power who made him, or as a lawless planet darting from its orbit to steal the celestial fire of reason; and the vengeance of heaven, lurking in the subtile flame, sufficiently punished his temerity, by introducing evil into the world.

Impressed by this view of the misery and disorder which pervaded society, and fatigued with jostling against artificial fools, Rousseau became enamoured of solitude, and, being at the same time an optimist, he labours with uncommon eloquence to prove that man was naturally a solitary animal. Misled by his respect for the goodness of God, who certainly for what man of sense and feeling can doubt it! gave life only to communicate happiness, he considers evil as positive, and the work of man; not aware that he was exalting one attribute at the expense of another, equally necessary to divine perfection.

Reared on a false hypothesis, his arguments in favour of a state of nature are plausible, but unsound. I say unsound; for to assert that a state of nature is preferable to civilization in all its possible perfection, is, in other words, to arraign supreme wisdom; and the paradoxical exclamation, that God has made all things right, and that evil has been introduced by the creature whom he formed, knowing what he formed, is as unphilosophical as impious.

When that wise Being, who created us and placed us here, saw the fair idea, he willed, by allowing it to be so, that the passions should unfold our reason, because he could see that present evil would produce future good. Could the helpless creature whom he called from nothing, break loose from his providence, and boldly learn to know good by practising evil without his permission? No. How could that energetic advocate for immortality argue so inconsistently? Had mankind remained for ever in the brutal state of nature, which even his magic pen cannot paint as a state in which a single virtue took root, it would have been clear, though not to the sensitive unreflecting wanderer, that man was born to run the circle of life and death, and adorn God's garden for some purpose which could not easily be reconciled with his attributes.

But if, to crown the whole, there were to be rational creatures produced, allowed to rise in excellency by the exercise of powers implanted for that purpose; if benignity itself thought fit to call into existence a creature above the brutes, who could think and improve himself, why should that inestimable gift, for a gift it was, if a man was so created as to have a capacity to rise above the state in which sensation produced brutal ease, be called, in direct terms, a curse? A curse it might be reckoned, if all our existence was bounded by our continuance in this world; for why should the gracious fountain of life give us passions, and the power of reflecting, only to embitter our days, and inspire us with mistaken notions of dignity? Why should he lead us from love of ourselves to the sublime emotions which the discovery of his wisdom and goodness excites, if these feelings were not set in motion to improve our nature, of which they make a part, and render us capable of enjoying a more godlike portion of happiness? Firmly persuaded that no evil exists in the world that God did not design to take place, I build my belief on the perfection of God.

Rousseau exerts himself to prove, that all WAS right originally: a crowd of authors that all IS now right: and I, that all WILL BE right.

But, true to his first position, next to a state of nature, Rousseau celebrates barbarism, and, apostrophizing the shade of Fabricius, he forgets that, in conquering the world, the Romans never dreamed of establishing their own liberty on a firm basis, or of extending the reign of virtue. Eager to support his system, he stigmatizes, as vicious, every effort of genius; and uttering the apotheosis of savage virtues, he exalts those to demigods, who were scarcely human—the brutal Spartans, who in defiance of justice and gratitude, sacrificed, in cold blood, the slaves that had shown themselves men to rescue their oppressors.

Disgusted with artificial manners and virtues, the citizen of Geneva, instead of properly sifting the subject, threw away the wheat with the chaff, without waiting to inquire whether the evils, which his ardent soul turned from indignantly, were the consequence of civilization, or the vestiges of barbarism. He saw vice trampling on virtue, and the semblance of goodness taking place of the reality; he saw talents bent by power to sinister purposes, and never thought of tracing the gigantic mischief up to arbitrary power, up to the hereditary distinctions that clash with the mental superiority that naturally raises a man above his fellows. He did not perceive, that the regal power, in a few generations, introduces idiotism into the noble stem, and holds out baits to render thousands idle and vicious.

Nothing can set the regal character in a more contemptible point of view, than the various crimes that have elevated men to the supreme dignity. Vile intrigues, unnatural crimes, and every vice that degrades our nature, have been the steps to this distinguished eminence; yet millions of men have supinely allowed the nerveless limbs of the posterity of such rapacious prowlers, to rest quietly on their ensanguined thrones.

What but a pestilential vapour can hover over society, when its chief director is only instructed in the invention of crimes, or the stupid routine of childish ceremonies? Will men never be wise? will they never cease to expect corn from tares, and figs from thistles?

It is impossible for any man, when the most favourable circumstances concur, to acquire sufficient knowledge and strength of mind to discharge the duties of a king, entrusted with uncontrolled power; how then must they be violated when his very elevation is an insuperable bar to the attainment of either wisdom or virtue; when all the feelings of a man are stifled by flattery, and reflection shut out by pleasure! Surely it is madness to make the fate of thousands depend on the caprice of a weak fellow creature, whose very station sinks him NECESSARILY below the meanest of his subjects! But one power should not be thrown down to exalt another—for all power intoxicates weak man; and its abuse proves, that the more equality there is established among men, the more virtue and happiness will reign in society. But this, and any similar maxim deduced from simple reason, raises an outcry—the church or the state is in danger, if faith in the wisdom of antiquity is not implicit; and they who, roused by the sight of human calamity, dare to attack human authority, are reviled as despisers of God, and enemies of man. These are bitter calumnies, yet they reached one of the best of men, (Dr. Price.) whose ashes still preach peace, and whose memory demands a respectful pause, when subjects are discussed that lay so near his heart.

After attacking the sacred majesty of kings, I shall scarcely excite surprise, by adding my firm persuasion, that every profession, in which great subordination of rank constitutes its power, is highly injurious to morality.

A standing army, for instance, is incompatible with freedom; because subordination and rigour are the very sinews of military discipline; and despotism is necessary to give vigour to enterprises that one will directs. A spirit inspired by romantic notions of honour, a kind of morality founded on the fashion of the age, can only be felt by a few officers, whilst the main body must be moved by command, like the waves of the sea; for the strong wind of authority pushes the crowd of subalterns forward, they scarcely know or care why, with headlong fury.

Besides, nothing can be so prejudicial to the morals of the inhabitants of country towns, as the occasional residence of a set of idle superficial young men, whose only occupation is gallantry, and whose polished manners render vice more dangerous, by concealing its deformity under gay ornamental drapery. An air of fashion, which is but a badge of slavery, and proves that the soul has not a strong individual character, awes simple country people into an imitation of the vices, when they cannot catch the slippery graces of politeness. Every corps is a chain of despots, who, submitting and tyrannizing without exercising their reason, become dead weights of vice and folly on the community. A man of rank or fortune, sure of rising by interest, has nothing to do but to pursue some extravagant freak; whilst the needy GENTLEMAN, who is to rise, as the phrase turns, by his merit, becomes a servile parasite or vile pander.

Sailors, the naval gentlemen, come under the same description, only their vices assume a different and a grosser cast. They are more positively indolent, when not discharging the ceremonials of their station; whilst the insignificant fluttering of soldiers may be termed active idleness. More confined to the society of men, the former acquire a fondness for humour and mischievous tricks; whilst the latter, mixing frequently with well-bred women, catch a sentimental cant. But mind is equally out of the question, whether they indulge the horse-laugh or polite simper.

May I be allowed to extend the comparison to a profession where more mind is certainly to be found; for the clergy have superior opportunities of improvement, though subordination almost equally cramps their faculties? The blind submission imposed at college to forms of belief, serves as a noviciate to the curate who most obsequiously respects the opinion of his rector or patron, if he means to rise in his profession. Perhaps there cannot be a more forcible contrast than between the servile, dependent gait of a poor curate, and the courtly mien of a bishop. And the respect and contempt they inspire render the discharge of their separate functions equally useless.

It is of great importance to observe, that the character of every man is, in some degree, formed by his profession. A man of sense may only have a cast of countenance that wears off as you trace his individuality, whilst the weak, common man, has scarcely ever any character, but what belongs to the body; at least, all his opinions have been so steeped in the vat consecrated by authority, that the faint spirit which the grape of his own vine yields cannot be distinguished.

Society, therefore, as it becomes more enlightened, should be very careful not to establish bodies of men who must necessarily be made foolish or vicious by the very constitution of their profession.

In the infancy of society, when men were just emerging out of barbarism, chiefs and priests, touching the most powerful springs of savage conduct—hope and fear—must have had unbounded sway. An aristocracy, of course, is naturally the first form of government. But clashing interests soon losing their equipoise, a monarchy and hierarchy break out of the confusion of ambitious struggles, and the foundation of both is secured by feudal tenures. This appears to be the origin of monarchial and priestly power, and the dawn of civilization. But such combustible materials cannot long be pent up; and getting vent in foreign wars and intestine insurrections, the people acquire some power in the tumult, which obliges their rulers to gloss over their oppression with a show of right. Thus, as wars, agriculture, commerce, and literature, expands the mind, despots are compelled, to make covert corruption hold fast the power which was formerly snatched by open force. And this baneful lurking gangrene is most quickly spread by luxury and superstition, the sure dregs of ambition. The indolent puppet of a court first becomes a luxurious monster, or fastidious sensualist, and then makes the contagion which his unnatural state spreads, the instrument of tyranny.

It is the pestiferous purple which renders the progress of civilization a curse, and warps the understanding, till men of sensibility doubt whether the expansion of intellect produces a greater portion of happiness or misery. But the nature of the poison points out the antidote; and had Rousseau mounted one step higher in his investigation; or could his eye have pierced through the foggy atmosphere, which he almost disdained to breathe, his active mind would have darted forward to contemplate the perfection of man in the establishment of true civilization, instead of taking his ferocious flight back to the night of sensual ignorance.

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

CHAPTER 2. THE PREVAILING OPINION OF A SEXUAL CHARACTER DISCUSSED.

To account for, and excuse the tyranny of man, many ingenious arguments have been brought forward to prove, that the two sexes, in the acquirement of virtue, ought to aim at attaining a very different character: or, to speak explicitly, women are not allowed to have sufficient strength of mind to acquire what really deserves the name of virtue. Yet it should seem, allowing them to have souls, that there is but one way appointed by providence to lead MANKIND to either virtue or happiness.

If then women are not a swarm of ephemeron triflers, why should they be kept in ignorance under the specious name of innocence? Men complain, and with reason, of the follies and caprices of our sex, when they do not keenly satirize our headstrong passions and groveling vices. Behold, I should answer, the natural effect of ignorance! The mind will ever be unstable that has only prejudices to rest on, and the current will run with destructive fury when there are no barriers to break its force. Women are told from their infancy, and taught by the example of their mothers, that a little knowledge of human weakness, justly termed cunning, softness of temper, OUTWARD obedience, and a scrupulous attention to a puerile kind of propriety, will obtain for them the protection of man; and should they be beautiful, every thing else is needless, for at least twenty years of their lives.

Thus Milton describes our first frail mother; though when he tells us that women are formed for softness and sweet attractive grace, I cannot comprehend his meaning, unless, in the true Mahometan strain, he meant to deprive us of souls, and insinuate that we were beings only designed by sweet attractive grace, and docile blind obedience, to gratify the senses of man when he can no longer soar on the wing of contemplation.

How grossly do they insult us, who thus advise us only to render ourselves gentle, domestic brutes! For instance, the winning softness, so warmly, and frequently recommended, that governs by obeying. What childish expressions, and how insignificant is the being—can it be an immortal one? who will condescend to govern by such sinister methods! "Certainly," says Lord Bacon, "man is of kin to the beasts by his body: and if he be not of kin to God by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature!" Men, indeed, appear to me to act in a very unphilosophical manner, when they try to secure the good conduct of women by attempting to keep them always in a state of childhood. Rousseau was more consistent when he wished to stop the progress of reason in both sexes; for if men eat of the tree of knowledge, women will come in for a taste: but, from the imperfect cultivation which their understandings now receive, they only attain a knowledge of evil.

Children, I grant, should be innocent; but when the epithet is applied to men, or women, it is but a civil term for weakness. For if it be allowed that women were destined by Providence to acquire human virtues, and by the exercise of their understandings, that stability of character which is the firmest ground to rest our future hopes upon, they must be permitted to turn to the fountain of light, and not forced to shape their course by the twinkling of a mere satellite. Milton, I grant, was of a very different opinion; for he only bends to the indefeasible right of beauty, though it would be difficult to render two passages, which I now mean to contrast, consistent: but into similar inconsistencies are great men often led by their senses:—

"To whom thus Eve with perfect beauty adorned:

My author and disposer, what thou bidst

Unargued I obey; so God ordains;

God is thy law, thou mine; to know no more

Is woman's happiest knowledge and her praise."

These are exactly the arguments that I have used to children; but I have added, "Your reason is now gaining strength, and, till it arrives at some degree of maturity, you must look up to me for advice: then you ought to THINK, and only rely on God."

Yet, in the following lines, Milton seems to coincide with me, when he makes Adam thus expostulate with his Maker:—

"Hast thou not made me here thy substitute,

And these inferior far beneath me set?

Among unequals what society

Can sort, what harmony or delight?

Which must be mutual, in proportion due

Given and received; but in disparity

The one intense, the other still remiss

Cannot well suit with either, but soon prove

Tedious alike: of fellowship I speak

Such as I seek fit to participate

All rational delight."

In treating, therefore, of the manners of women, let us, disregarding sensual arguments, trace what we should endeavour to make them in order to co-operate, if the expression be not too bold, with the Supreme Being.

By individual education, I mean—for the sense of the word is not precisely defined—such an attention to a child as will slowly sharpen the senses, form the temper, regulate the passions, as they begin to ferment, and set the understanding to work before the body arrives at maturity; so that the man may only have to proceed, not to begin, the important task of learning to think and reason.

To prevent any misconstruction, I must add, that I do not believe that a private education can work the wonders which some sanguine writers have attributed to it. Men and women must be educated, in a great degree, by the opinions and manners of the society they live in. In every age there has been a stream of popular opinion that has carried all before it, and given a family character, as it were, to the century. It may then fairly be inferred, that, till society be differently constituted, much cannot be expected from education. It is, however, sufficient for my present purpose to assert, that, whatever effect circumstances have on the abilities, every being may become virtuous by the exercise of its own reason; for if but one being was created with vicious inclinations—that is, positively bad— what can save us from atheism? or if we worship a God, is not that God a devil?

Consequently, the most perfect education, in my opinion, is such an exercise of the understanding as is best calculated to strengthen the body and form the heart; or, in other words, to enable the individual to attain such habits of virtue as will render it independent. In fact, it is a farce to call any being virtuous whose virtues do not result from the exercise of its own reason. This was Rousseau's opinion respecting men: I extend it to women, and confidently assert that they have been drawn out of their sphere by false refinement, and not by an endeavour to acquire masculine qualities. Still the regal homage which they receive is so intoxicating, that, till the manners of the times are changed, and formed on more reasonable principles, it may be impossible to convince them that the illegitimate power, which they obtain by degrading themselves, is a curse, and that they must return to nature and equality, if they wish to secure the placid satisfaction that unsophisticated affections impart. But for this epoch we must wait—wait, perhaps, till kings and nobles, enlightened by reason, and, preferring the real dignity of man to childish state, throw off their gaudy hereditary trappings; and if then women do not resign the arbitrary power of beauty, they will prove that they have LESS mind than man. I may be accused of arrogance; still I must declare, what I firmly believe, that all the writers who have written on the subject of female education and manners, from Rousseau to Dr. Gregory, have contributed to render women more artificial, weaker characters, than they would otherwise have been; and, consequently, more useless members of society. I might have expressed this conviction in a lower key; but I am afraid it would have been the whine of affectation, and not the faithful expression of my feelings, of the clear result, which experience and reflection have led me to draw. When I come to that division of the subject, I shall advert to the passages that I more particularly disapprove of, in the works of the authors I have just alluded to; but it is first necessary to observe, that my objection extends to the whole purport of those books, which tend, in my opinion, to degrade one half of the human species, and render women pleasing at the expense of every solid virtue.

Though to reason on Rousseau's ground, if man did attain a degree of perfection of mind when his body arrived at maturity, it might be proper in order to make a man and his wife ONE, that she should rely entirely on his understanding; and the graceful ivy, clasping the oak that supported it, would form a whole in which strength and beauty would be equally conspicuous. But, alas! husbands, as well as their helpmates, are often only overgrown children; nay, thanks to early debauchery, scarcely men in their outward form, and if the blind lead the blind, one need not come from heaven to tell us the consequence.

Many are the causes that, in the present corrupt state of society, contribute to enslave women by cramping their understandings and sharpening their senses. One, perhaps, that silently does more mischief than all the rest, is their disregard of order.

To do every thing in an orderly manner, is a most important precept, which women, who, generally speaking, receive only a disorderly kind of education, seldom attend to with that degree of exactness that men, who from their infancy are broken into method, observe. This negligent kind of guesswork, for what other epithet can be used to point out the random exertions of a sort of instinctive common sense, never brought to the test of reason? prevents their generalizing matters of fact, so they do to-day, what they did yesterday, merely because they did it yesterday.

This contempt of the understanding in early life has more baneful consequences than is commonly supposed; for the little knowledge which women of strong minds attain, is, from various circumstances, of a more desultory kind than the knowledge of men, and it is acquired more by sheer observations on real life, than from comparing what has been individually observed with the results of experience generalized by speculation. Led by their dependent situation and domestic employments more into society, what they learn is rather by snatches; and as learning is with them, in general, only a secondary thing, they do not pursue any one branch with that persevering ardour necessary to give vigour to the faculties, and clearness to the judgment. In the present state of society, a little learning is required to support the character of a gentleman; and boys are obliged to submit to a few years of discipline. But in the education of women the cultivation of the understanding is always subordinate to the acquirement of some corporeal accomplishment; even while enervated by confinement and false notions of modesty, the body is prevented from attaining that grace and beauty which relaxed half-formed limbs never exhibit. Besides, in youth their faculties are not brought forward by emulation; and having no serious scientific study, if they have natural sagacity it is turned too soon on life and manners. They dwell on effects, and modifications, without tracing them back to causes; and complicated rules to adjust behaviour are a weak substitute for simple principles.

As a proof that education gives this appearance of weakness to females, we may instance the example of military men, who are, like them, sent into the world before their minds have been stored with knowledge or fortified by principles. The consequences are similar; soldiers acquire a little superficial knowledge, snatched from the muddy current of conversation, and, from continually mixing with society, they gain, what is termed a knowledge of the world; and this acquaintance with manners and customs has frequently been confounded with a knowledge of the human heart. But can the crude fruit of casual observation, never brought to the test of judgment, formed by comparing speculation and experience, deserve such a distinction? Soldiers, as well as women, practice the minor virtues with punctilious politeness. Where is then the sexual difference, when the education has been the same; all the difference that I can discern, arises from the superior advantage of liberty which enables the former to see more of life.

It is wandering from my present subject, perhaps, to make a political remark; but as it was produced naturally by the train of my reflections, I shall not pass it silently over.

Standing armies can never consist of resolute, robust men; they may be well disciplined machines, but they will seldom contain men under the influence of strong passions or with very vigorous faculties. And as for any depth of understanding, I will venture to affirm, that it is as rarely to be found in the army as amongst women; and the cause, I maintain, is the same. It may be further observed, that officers are also particularly attentive to their persons, fond of dancing, crowded rooms, adventures, and ridicule. Like the FAIR sex, the business of their lives is gallantry. They were taught to please, and they only live to please. Yet they do not lose their rank in the distinction of sexes, for they are still reckoned superior to women, though in what their superiority consists, beyond what I have just mentioned, it is difficult to discover.

The great misfortune is this, that they both acquire manners before morals, and a knowledge of life before they have from reflection, any acquaintance with the grand ideal outline of human nature. The consequence is natural; satisfied with common nature, they become a prey to prejudices, and taking all their opinions on credit, they blindly submit to authority. So that if they have any sense, it is a kind of instinctive glance, that catches proportions, and decides with respect to manners; but fails when arguments are to be pursued below the surface, or opinions analyzed.

May not the same remark be applied to women? Nay, the argument may be carried still further, for they are both thrown out of a useful station by the unnatural distinctions established in civilized life. Riches and hereditary honours have made cyphers of women to give consequence to the numerical figure; and idleness has produced a mixture of gallantry and despotism in society, which leads the very men who are the slaves of their mistresses, to tyrannize over their sisters, wives, and daughters. This is only keeping them in rank and file, it is true. Strengthen the female mind by enlarging it, and there will be an end to blind obedience; but, as blind obedience is ever sought for by power, tyrants and sensualists are in the right when they endeavour to keep women in the dark, because the former only want slaves, and the latter a play-thing. The sensualist, indeed, has been the most dangerous of tyrants, and women have been duped by their lovers, as princes by their ministers, whilst dreaming that they reigned over them.

I now principally allude to Rousseau, for his character of Sophia is, undoubtedly, a captivating one, though it appears to me grossly unnatural; however, it is not the superstructure, but the foundation of her character, the principles on which her education was built, that I mean to attack; nay, warmly as I admire the genius of that able writer, whose opinions I shall often have occasion to cite, indignation always takes place of admiration, and the rigid frown of insulted virtue effaces the smile of complacency, which his eloquent periods are wont to raise, when I read his voluptuous reveries. Is this the man, who, in his ardour for virtue, would banish all the soft arts of peace, and almost carry us back to Spartan discipline? Is this the man who delights to paint the useful struggles of passion, the triumphs of good dispositions, and the heroic flights which carry the glowing soul out of itself? How are these mighty sentiments lowered when he describes the prettyfoot and enticing airs of his little favourite! But, for the present, I waive the subject, and, instead of severely reprehending the transient effusions of overweening sensibility, I shall only observe, that whoever has cast a benevolent eye on society, must often have been gratified by the sight of humble mutual love, not dignified by sentiment, nor strengthened by a union in intellectual pursuits. The domestic trifles of the day have afforded matter for cheerful converse, and innocent caresses have softened toils which did not require great exercise of mind, or stretch of thought: yet, has not the sight of this moderate felicity excited more tenderness than respect? An emotion similar to what we feel when children are playing, or animals sporting, whilst the contemplation of the noble struggles of suffering merit has raised admiration, and carried our thoughts to that world where sensation will give place to reason.

Women are, therefore, to be considered either as moral beings, or so weak that they must be entirely subjected to the superior faculties of men.

Let us examine this question. Rousseau declares, that a woman should never, for a moment feel herself independent, that she should be governed by fear to exercise her NATURAL cunning, and made a coquetish slave in order to render her a more alluring object of desire, a SWEETER companion to man, whenever he chooses to relax himself. He carries the arguments, which he pretends to draw from the indications of nature, still further, and insinuates that truth and fortitude the corner stones of all human virtue, shall be cultivated with certain restrictions, because with respect to the female character, obedience is the grand lesson which ought to be impressed with unrelenting rigour.

What nonsense! When will a great man arise with sufficient strength of mind to puff away the fumes which pride and sensuality have thus spread over the subject! If women are by nature inferior to men, their virtues must be the same in quality, if not in degree, or virtue is a relative idea; consequently, their conduct should be founded on the same principles, and have the same aim.

Connected with man as daughters, wives, and mothers, their moral character may be estimated by their manner of fulfilling those simple duties; but the end, the grand end of their exertions should be to unfold their own faculties, and acquire the dignity of conscious virtue. They may try to render their road pleasant; but ought never to forget, in common with man, that life yields not the felicity which can satisfy an immortal soul. I do not mean to insinuate, that either sex should be so lost, in abstract reflections or distant views, as to forget the affections and duties that lie before them, and are, in truth, the means appointed to produce the fruit of life; on the contrary, I would warmly recommend them, even while I assert, that they afford most satisfaction when they are considered in their true subordinate light.

Probably the prevailing opinion, that woman was created for man, may have taken its rise from Moses's poetical story; yet, as very few it is presumed, who have bestowed any serious thought on the subject, ever supposed that Eve was, literally speaking, one of Adam's ribs, the deduction must be allowed to fall to the ground; or, only be so far admitted as it proves that man, from the remotest antiquity, found it convenient to exert his strength to subjugate his companion, and his invention to show that she ought to have her neck bent under the yoke; because she as well as the brute creation, was created to do his pleasure.

Let it not be concluded, that I wish to invert the order of things; I have already granted, that, from the constitution of their bodies, men seem to be designed by Providence to attain a greater degree of virtue. I speak collectively of the whole sex; but I see not the shadow of a reason to conclude that their virtues should differ in respect to their nature. In fact, how can they, if virtue has only one eternal standard? I must, therefore, if I reason consequentially, as strenuously maintain, that they have the same simple direction, as that there is a God.

It follows then, that cunning should not be opposed to wisdom, little cares to great exertions, nor insipid softness, varnished over with the name of gentleness, to that fortitude which grand views alone can inspire.

I shall be told, that woman would then lose many of her peculiar graces, and the opinion of a well known poet might be quoted to refute my unqualified assertions. For Pope has said, in the name of the whole male sex,

"Yet ne'er so sure our passions to create,

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

In what light this sally places men and women, I shall leave to the judicious to determine; meanwhile I shall content myself with observing, that I cannot discover why, unless they are mortal, females should always be degraded by being made subservient to love or lust.

To speak disrespectfully of love is, I know, high treason against sentiment and fine feelings; but I wish to speak the simple language of truth, and rather to address the head than the heart. To endeavour to reason love out of the world, would be to out Quixote Cervantes, and equally offend against common sense; but an endeavour to restrain this tumultuous passion, and to prove that it should not be allowed to dethrone superior powers, or to usurp the sceptre which the understanding should ever coolly wield, appears less wild.

Youth is the season for love in both sexes; but in those days of thoughtless enjoyment, provision should be made for the more important years of life, when reflection takes place of sensation. But Rousseau, and most of the male writers who have followed his steps, have warmly inculcated that the whole tendency of female education ought to be directed to one point to render them pleasing.

Let me reason with the supporters of this opinion, who have any knowledge of human nature, do they imagine that marriage can eradicate the habitude of life? The woman who has only been taught to please, will soon find that her charms are oblique sun-beams, and that they cannot have much effect on her husband's heart when they are seen every day, when the summer is past and gone. Will she then have sufficient native energy to look into herself for comfort, and cultivate her dormant faculties? or, is it not more rational to expect, that she will try to please other men; and, in the emotions raised by the expectation of new conquests, endeavour to forget the mortification her love or pride has received? When the husband ceases to be a lover—and the time will inevitably come, her desire of pleasing will then grow languid, or become a spring of bitterness; and love, perhaps, the most evanescent of all passions, gives place to jealousy or vanity.

I now speak of women who are restrained by principle or prejudice; such women though they would shrink from an intrigue with real abhorrence, yet, nevertheless, wish to be convinced by the homage of gallantry, that they are cruelly neglected by their husbands; or, days and weeks are spent in dreaming of the happiness enjoyed by congenial souls, till the health is undermined and the spirits broken by discontent. How then can the great art of pleasing be such a necessary study? it is only useful to a mistress; the chaste wife, and serious mother, should only consider her power to please as the polish of her virtues, and the affection of her husband as one of the comforts that render her task less difficult, and her life happier. But, whether she be loved or neglected, her first wish should be to make herself respectable, and not rely for all her happiness on a being subject to like infirmities with herself.

The amiable Dr. Gregory fell into a similar error. I respect his heart; but entirely disapprove of his celebrated Legacy to his Daughters.

He advises them to cultivate a fondness for dress, because a fondness for dress, he asserts, is natural to them. I am unable to comprehend what either he or Rousseau mean, when they frequently use this indefinite term. If they told us, that in a pre-existent state the soul was fond of dress, and brought this inclination with it into a new body, I should listen to them with a half smile, as I often do when I hear a rant about innate elegance. But if he only meant to say that the exercise of the faculties will produce this fondness, I deny it. It is not natural; but arises, like false ambition in men, from a love of power.

Dr. Gregory goes much further; he actually recommends dissimulation, and advises an innocent girl to give the lie to her feelings, and not dance with spirit, when gaiety of heart would make her feet eloquent, without making her gestures immodest. In the name of truth and common sense, why should not one woman acknowledge that she can take more exercise than another? or, in other words, that she has a sound constitution; and why to damp innocent vivacity, is she darkly to be told, that men will draw conclusions which she little thinks of? Let the libertine draw what inference he pleases; but, I hope, that no sensible mother will restrain the natural frankness of youth, by instilling such indecent cautions. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh; and a wiser than Solomon hath said, that the heart should be made clean, and not trivial ceremonies observed, which it is not very difficult to fulfill with scrupulous exactness when vice reigns in the heart.

Women ought to endeavour to purify their hearts; but can they do so when their uncultivated understandings make them entirely dependent on their senses for employment and amusement, when no noble pursuit sets them above the little vanities of the day, or enables them to curb the wild emotions that agitate a reed over which every passing breeze has power? To gain the affections of a virtuous man, is affectation necessary?

Nature has given woman a weaker frame than man; but, to ensure her husband's affections, must a wife, who, by the exercise of her mind and body, whilst she was discharging the duties of a daughter, wife, and mother, has allowed her constitution to retain its natural strength, and her nerves a healthy tone, is she, I say, to condescend, to use art, and feign a sickly delicacy, in order to secure her husband's affection? Weakness may excite tenderness, and gratify the arrogant pride of man; but the lordly caresses of a protector will not gratify a noble mind that pants for and deserves to be respected. Fondness is a poor substitute for friendship!

In a seraglio, I grant, that all these arts are necessary; the epicure must have his palate tickled, or he will sink into apathy; but have women so little ambition as to be satisfied with such a condition? Can they supinely dream life away in the lap of pleasure, or in the languor of weariness, rather than assert their claim to pursue reasonable pleasures, and render themselves conspicuous, by practising the virtues which dignify mankind? Surely she has not an immortal soul who can loiter life away, merely employed to adorn her person, that she may amuse the languid hours, and soften the cares of a fellow-creature who is willing to be enlivened by her smiles and tricks, when the serious business of life is over.

Besides, the woman who strengthens her body and exercises her mind will, by managing her family and practising various virtues, become the friend, and not the humble dependent of her husband; and if she deserves his regard by possessing such substantial qualities, she will not find it necessary to conceal her affection, nor to pretend to an unnatural coldness of constitution to excite her husband's passions. In fact, if we revert to history, we shall find that the women who have distinguished themselves have neither been the most beautiful nor the most gentle of their sex.

Nature, or to speak with strict propriety God, has made all things right; but man has sought him out many inventions to mar the work. I now allude to that part of Dr. Gregory's treatise, where he advises a wife never to let her husband know the extent of her sensibility or affection. Voluptuous precaution; and as ineffectual as absurd. Love, from its very nature, must be transitory. To seek for a secret that would render it constant, would be as wild a search as for the philosopher's stone, or the grand panacea; and the discovery would be equally useless, or rather pernicious to mankind. The most holy band of society is friendship. It has been well said, by a shrewd satirist, "that rare as true love is, true friendship is still rarer."

This is an obvious truth, and the cause not lying deep, will not elude a slight glance of inquiry.

Love, the common passion, in which chance and sensation take place of choice and reason, is in some degree, felt by the mass of mankind; for it is not necessary to speak, at present, of the emotions that rise above or sink below love. This passion, naturally increased by suspense and difficulties, draws the mind out of its accustomed state, and exalts the affections; but the security of marriage, allowing the fever of love to subside, a healthy temperature is thought insipid, only by those who have not sufficient intellect to substitute the calm tenderness of friendship, the confidence of respect, instead of blind admiration, and the sensual emotions of fondness.

This is, must be, the course of nature—friendship or indifference inevitably succeeds love. And this constitution seems perfectly to harmonize with the system of government which prevails in the moral world. Passions are spurs to action, and open the mind; but they sink into mere appetites, become a personal momentary gratification, when the object is gained, and the satisfied mind rests in enjoyment. The man who had some virtue whilst he was struggling for a crown, often becomes a voluptuous tyrant when it graces his brow; and, when the lover is not lost in the husband, the dotard a prey to childish caprices, and fond jealousies, neglects the serious duties of life, and the caresses which should excite confidence in his children are lavished on the overgrown child, his wife.

In order to fulfil the duties of life, and to be able to pursue with vigour the various employments which form the moral character, a master and mistress of a family ought not to continue to love each other with passion. I mean to say, that they ought not to indulge those emotions which disturb the order of society, and engross the thoughts that should be otherwise employed. The mind that has never been engrossed by one object wants vigour—if it can long be so, it is weak.

A mistaken education, a narrow, uncultivated mind, and many sexual prejudices, tend to make women more constant than men; but, for the present, I shall not touch on this branch of the subject. I will go still further, and advance, without dreaming of a paradox, that an unhappy marriage is often very advantageous to a family, and that the neglected wife is, in general, the best mother. And this would almost always be the consequence, if the female mind was more enlarged; for, it seems to be the common dispensation of Providence, that what we gain in present enjoyment should be deducted from the treasure of life, experience; and that when we are gathering the flowers of the day and revelling in pleasure, the solid fruit of toil and wisdom should not be caught at the same time. The way lies before us, we must turn to the right or left; and he who will pass life away in bounding from one pleasure to another, must not complain if he neither acquires wisdom nor respectability of character.

Supposing for a moment, that the soul is not immortal, and that man was only created for the present scene; I think we should have reason to complain that love, infantine fondness, ever grew insipid and palled upon the sense. Let us eat, drink, and love, for to-morrow we die, would be in fact the language of reason, the morality of life; and who but a fool would part with a reality for a fleeting shadow? But, if awed by observing the improvable powers of the mind, we disdain to confine our wishes or thoughts to such a comparatively mean field of action; that only appears grand and important as it is connected with a boundless prospect and sublime hopes; what necessity is there for falsehood in conduct, and why must the sacred majesty of truth be violated to detain a deceitful good that saps the very foundation of virtue? Why must the female mind be tainted by coquetish arts to gratify the sensualist, and prevent love from subsiding into friendship or compassionate tenderness, when there are not qualities on which friendship can be built? Let the honest heart show itself, and REASON teach passion to submit to necessity; or, let the dignified pursuit of virtue and knowledge raise the mind above those emotions which rather imbitter than sweeten the cup of life, when they are not restrained within due bounds.

I do not mean to allude to the romantic passion, which is the concomitant of genius. Who can clip its wings? But that grand passion not proportioned to the puny enjoyments of life, is only true to the sentiment, and feeds on itself. The passions which have been celebrated for their durability have always been unfortunate. They have acquired strength by absence and constitutional melancholy. The fancy has hovered round a form of beauty dimly seen—but familiarity might have turned admiration into disgust; or, at least, into indifference, and allowed the imagination leisure to start fresh game. With perfect propriety, according to this view of things, does Rousseau make the mistress of his soul, Eloisa, love St. Preux, when life was fading before her; but this is no proof of the immortality of the passion.

Of the same complexion is Dr. Gregory's advice respecting delicacy of sentiment, which he advises a woman not to acquire, if she has determined to marry. This determination, however, perfectly consistent with his former advice, he calls INDELICATE, and earnestly persuades his daughters to conceal it, though it may govern their conduct: as if it were indelicate to have the common appetites of human nature.

Noble morality! and consistent with the cautious prudence of a little soul that cannot extend its views beyond the present minute division of existence. If all the faculties of woman's mind are only to be cultivated as they respect her dependence on man; if, when she obtains a husband she has arrived at her goal, and meanly proud, is satisfied with such a paltry crown, let her grovel contentedly, scarcely raised by her employments above the animal kingdom; but, if she is struggling for the prize of her high calling, let her cultivate her understanding without stopping to consider what character the husband may have whom she is destined to marry. Let her only determine, without being too anxious about present happiness, to acquire the qualities that ennoble a rational being, and a rough, inelegant husband may shock her taste without destroying her peace of mind. She will not model her soul to suit the frailties of her companion, but to bear with them: his character may be a trial, but not an impediment to virtue.

If Dr. Gregory confined his remark to romantic expectations of constant love and congenial feelings, he should have recollected, that experience will banish what advice can never make us cease to wish for, when the imagination is kept alive at the expence of reason.

I own it frequently happens, that women who have fostered a romantic unnatural delicacy of feeling, waste their lives in IMAGINING how happy they should have been with a husband who could love them with a fervid increasing affection every day, and all day. But they might as well pine married as single, and would not be a jot more unhappy with a bad husband than longing for a good one. That a proper education; or, to speak with more precision, a well stored mind, would enable a woman to support a single life with dignity, I grant; but that she should avoid cultivating her taste, lest her husband should occasionally shock it, is quitting a substance for a shadow. To say the truth, I do not know of what use is an improved taste, if the individual be not rendered more independent of the casualties of life; if new sources of enjoyment, only dependent on the solitary operations of the mind, are not opened. People of taste, married or single, without distinction, will ever be disgusted by various things that touch not less observing minds. On this conclusion the argument must not be allowed to hinge; but in the whole sum of enjoyment is taste to be denominated a blessing?

The question is, whether it procures most pain or pleasure? The answer will decide the propriety of Dr. Gregory's advice, and show how absurd and tyrannic it is thus to lay down a system of slavery; or to attempt to educate moral beings by any other rules than those deduced from pure reason, which apply to the whole species.

Gentleness of manners, forbearance, and long suffering, are such amiable godlike qualities, that in sublime poetic strains the Deity has been invested with them; and, perhaps, no representation of his goodness so strongly fastens on the human affections as those that represent him abundant in mercy and willing to pardon. Gentleness, considered in this point of view, bears on its front all the characteristics of grandeur, combined with the winning graces of condescension; but what a different aspect it assumes when it is the submissive demeanour of dependence, the support of weakness that loves, because it wants protection; and is forbearing, because it must silently endure injuries; smiling under the lash at which it dare not snarl. Abject as this picture appears, it is the portrait of an accomplished woman, according to the received opinion of female excellence, separated by specious reasoners from human excellence. Or, they (Vide Rousseau, and Swedenborg) kindly restore the rib, and make one moral being of a man and woman; not forgetting to give her all the "submissive charms."

How women are to exist in that state where there is to be neither marrying nor giving in marriage, we are not told. For though moralists have agreed, that the tenor of life seems to prove that MAN is prepared by various circumstances for a future state, they constantly concur in advising WOMAN only to provide for the present. Gentleness, docility, and a spaniel-like affection are, on this ground, consistently recommended as the cardinal virtues of the sex; and, disregarding the arbitrary economy of nature, one writer has declared that it is masculine for a woman to be melancholy. She was created to be the toy of man, his rattle, and it must jingle in his ears, whenever, dismissing reason, he chooses to be amused.

To recommend gentleness, indeed, on a broad basis is strictly philosophical. A frail being should labour to be gentle. But when forbearance confounds right and wrong, it ceases to be a virtue; and, however convenient it may be found in a companion, that companion will ever be considered as an inferior, and only inspire a vapid tenderness, which easily degenerates into contempt. Still, if advice could really make a being gentle, whose natural disposition admitted not of such a fine polish, something toward the advancement of order would be attained; but if, as might quickly be demonstrated, only affectation be produced by this indiscriminate counsel, which throws a stumbling block in the way of gradual improvement, and true melioration of temper, the sex is not much benefited by sacrificing solid virtues to the attainment of superficial graces, though for a few years they may procure the individual's regal sway.

As a philosopher, I read with indignation the plausible epithets which men use to soften their insults; and, as a moralist, I ask what is meant by such heterogeneous associations, as fair defects, amiable weaknesses, etc.? If there is but one criterion of morals, but one archetype for man, women appear to be suspended by destiny, according to the vulgar tale of Mahomet's coffin; they have neither the unerring instinct of brutes, nor are allowed to fix the eye of reason on a perfect model. They were made to be loved, and must not aim at respect, lest they should be hunted out of society as masculine.

But to view the subject in another point of view. Do passive indolent women make the best wives? Confining our discussion to the present moment of existence, let us see how such weak creatures perform their part? Do the women who, by the attainment of a few superficial accomplishments, have strengthened the prevailing prejudice, merely contribute to the happiness of their husbands? Do they display their charms merely to amuse them? And have women, who have early imbibed notions of passive obedience, sufficient character to manage a family or educate children? So far from it, that, after surveying the history of woman, I cannot help agreeing with the severest satirist, considering the sex as the weakest as well as the most oppressed half of the species. What does history disclose but marks of inferiority, and how few women have emancipated themselves from the galling yoke of sovereign man? So few, that the exceptions remind me of an ingenious conjecture respecting Newton: that he was probably a being of a superior order, accidentally caged in a human body. In the same style I have been led to imagine that the few extraordinary women who have rushed in eccentrical directions out of the orbit prescribed to their sex, were MALE spirits, confined by mistake in a female frame. But if it be not philosophical to think of sex when the soul is mentioned, the inferiority must depend on the organs; or the heavenly fire, which is to ferment the clay, is not given in equal portions.

But avoiding, as I have hitherto done, any direct comparison of the two sexes collectively, or frankly acknowledging the inferiority of woman, according to the present appearance of things, I shall only insist, that men have increased that inferiority till women are almost sunk below the standard of rational creatures. Let their faculties have room to unfold, and their virtues to gain strength, and then determine where the whole sex must stand in the intellectual scale. Yet, let it be remembered, that for a small number of distinguished women I do not ask a place.

It is difficult for us purblind mortals to say to what height human discoveries and improvements may arrive, when the gloom of despotism subsides, which makes us stumble at every step; but, when morality shall be settled on a more solid basis, then, without being gifted with a prophetic spirit, I will venture to predict, that woman will be either the friend or slave of man. We shall not, as at present, doubt whether she is a moral agent, or the link which unites man with brutes. But, should it then appear, that like the brutes they were principally created for the use of man, he will let them patiently bite the bridle, and not mock them with empty praise; or, should their rationality be proved, he will not impede their improvement merely to gratify his sensual appetites. He will not with all the graces of rhetoric, advise them to submit implicitly their understandings to the guidance of man. He will not, when he treats of the education of women, assert, that they ought never to have the free use of reason, nor would he recommend cunning and dissimulation to beings who are acquiring, in like manner as himself, the virtues of humanity.

Surely there can be but one rule of right, if morality has an eternal foundation, and whoever sacrifices virtue, strictly so called, to present convenience, or whose DUTY it is to act in such a manner, lives only for the passing day, and cannot be an accountable creature.

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

"If weak women go astray,

The stars are more in fault than they."

For that they are bound by the adamantine chain of destiny is most certain, if it be proved that they are never to exercise their own reason, never to be independent, never to rise above opinion, or to feel the dignity of a rational will that only bows to God, and often forgets that the universe contains any being but itself, and the model of perfection to which its ardent gaze is turned, to adore attributes that, softened into virtues, may be imitated in kind, though the degree overwhelms the enraptured mind.

If, I say, for I would not impress by declamation when reason offers her sober light, if they are really capable of acting like rational creatures, let them not be treated like slaves; or, like the brutes who are dependent on the reason of man, when they associate with him; but cultivate their minds, give them the salutary, sublime curb of principle, and let them attain conscious dignity by feeling themselves only dependent on God. Teach them, in common with man, to submit to necessity, instead of giving, to render them more pleasing, a sex to morals.

Further, should experience prove that they cannot attain the same degree of strength of mind, perseverance and fortitude, let their virtues be the same in kind, though they may vainly struggle for the same degree; and the superiority of man will be equally clear, if not clearer; and truth, as it is a simple principle, which admits of no modification, would be common to both. Nay, the order of society, as it is at present regulated, would not be inverted, for woman would then only have the rank that reason assigned her, and arts could not be practised to bring the balance even, much less to turn it.

These may be termed Utopian dreams. Thanks to that Being who impressed them on my soul, and gave me sufficient strength of mind to dare to exert my own reason, till becoming dependent only on him for the support of my virtue, I view with indignation, the mistaken notions that enslave my sex.

I love man as my fellow; but his sceptre real or usurped, extends not to me, unless the reason of an individual demands my homage; and even then the submission is to reason, and not to man. In fact, the conduct of an accountable being must be regulated by the operations of its own reason; or on what foundation rests the throne of God?

It appears to me necessary to dwell on these obvious truths, because females have been insulted, as it were; and while they have been stripped of the virtues that should clothe humanity, they have been decked with artificial graces, that enable them to exercise a short lived tyranny. Love, in their bosoms, taking place of every nobler passion, their sole ambition is to be fair, to raise emotion instead of inspiring respect; and this ignoble desire, like the servility in absolute monarchies, destroys all strength of character. Liberty is the mother of virtue, and if women are, by their very constitution, slaves, and not allowed to breathe the sharp invigorating air of freedom, they must ever languish like exotics, and be reckoned beautiful flaws in nature; let it also be remembered, that they are the only flaw.

As to the argument respecting the subjection in which the sex has ever been held, it retorts on man. The many have always been enthralled by the few; and, monsters who have scarcely shown any discernment of human excellence, have tyrannized over thousands of their fellow creatures. Why have men of superior endowments submitted to such degradation? For, is it not universally acknowledged that kings, viewed collectively, have ever been inferior, in abilities and virtue, to the same number of men taken from the common mass of mankind—yet, have they not, and are they not still treated with a degree of reverence, that is an insult to reason? China is not the only country where a living man has been made a God. MEN have submitted to superior strength, to enjoy with impunity the pleasure of the moment—WOMEN have only done the same, and therefore till it is proved that the courtier, who servilely resigns the birthright of a man, is not a moral agent, it cannot be demonstrated that woman is essentially inferior to man, because she has always been subjugated.

Brutal force has hitherto governed the world, and that the science of politics is in its infancy, is evident from philosophers scrupling to give the knowledge most useful to man that determinate distinction.

I shall not pursue this argument any further than to establish an obvious inference, that as sound politics diffuse liberty, mankind, including woman, will become more wise and virtuous.

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

CHAPTER 3. THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

Bodily strength from being the distinction of heroes is now sunk into such unmerited contempt, that men as well as women, seem to think it unnecessary: the latter, as it takes from their feminine graces, and from that lovely weakness, the source of their undue power; and the former, because it appears inimical with the character 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 a vulgar error has obtained a degree of credit, which has given force to a false conclusion, in which an effect has been mistaken for a cause.

People of genius have, very frequently, impaired their constitutions by study, or careless inattention to their health, and the violence of their passions bearing a proportion to the vigour of their intellects, the sword's destroying the scabbard has become almost proverbial, and superficial observers have inferred from thence, that men of genius have commonly weak, or to use a more fashionable phrase, delicate constitutions. Yet the contrary, I believe, will appear to be the fact; for, on diligent inquiry, I find that strength of mind has, in most cases, been accompanied by superior strength of body, natural soundness of constitution, not that robust tone of nerves and vigour of muscles, which arise from bodily labour, when the mind is quiescent, or only directs the hands.

Dr. Priestley has remarked, in the preface to his biographical chart, that the majority of great men have lived beyond forty-five. And, considering the thoughtless manner in which they lavished their strength, when investigating a favourite science, they have wasted the lamp of life, forgetful of the midnight hour; or, when, lost in poetic dreams, fancy has peopled the scene, and the soul has been disturbed, till it shook the constitution, by the passions that meditation had raised; whose objects, the baseless fabric of a vision, faded before the exhausted eye, they must have had iron frames. Shakespeare never grasped the airy dagger with a nerveless hand, nor did Milton tremble when he led Satan far from the confines of his dreary prison. These were not the ravings of imbecility, the sickly effusions of distempered brains; but the exuberance of fancy, that "in a fine phrenzy" wandering, was not continually reminded of its material shackles.

I am aware, that this argument would carry me further than it may be supposed I wish to go; but I follow truth, and still adhering to my first position, I will allow that bodily strength seems to give man a natural superiority over woman; and this is the only solid basis on which the superiority of the sex can be built. But I still insist, that not only the virtue, but the KNOWLEDGE of the two sexes should be the same in nature, if not in degree, and that women, considered not only as moral, but rational creatures, ought to endeavour to acquire human virtues (or perfections) by the SAME means as men, instead of being educated like a fanciful kind of HALF being, one of Rousseau's wild chimeras.

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

Women deluded by these sentiments, sometimes boast of their weakness, cunningly obtaining power by playing on the WEAKNESS of men; and they may well glory in their illicit sway, for, like Turkish bashaws, they have more real power than their masters: but virtue is sacrificed to temporary gratifications, and the respectability of life to the triumph of an hour.

Women, as well as despots, have now, perhaps, more power than they would have, if the world, divided and subdivided into kingdoms and families, was governed by laws deduced from the exercise of reason; but in obtaining it, to carry on the comparison, their character is degraded, and licentiousness spread through the whole aggregate of society. The many become pedestal to the few. I, therefore will venture to assert, that till women are more rationally educated, the progress of human virtue and improvement in knowledge must receive continual checks. And if it be granted, that woman was not created merely to gratify the appetite of man, nor to be the upper servant, who provides his meals and takes care of his linen, it must follow, that the first care of those mothers or fathers, who really attend to the education of females, should be, if not to strengthen the body, at least, not to destroy the constitution by mistaken notions of beauty and female excellence; nor should girls ever be allowed to imbibe the pernicious notion that a defect can, by any chemical process of reasoning become an excellence. In this respect, I am happy to find, that the author of one of the most instructive books, that our country has produced for children, coincides with me in opinion; I shall quote his pertinent remarks to give the force of his respectable authority to reason.

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 to become still weaker than nature intended her to be? Arguments of this cast are an insult to common sense, and savour of passion. The DIVINE RIGHT of husbands, like the divine right of kings, may, it is to be hoped, in this enlightened age, be contested without danger, and though conviction may not silence many boisterous disputants, yet, when any prevailing prejudice is attacked, the wise will consider, and leave the narrow-minded to rail with thoughtless vehemence at innovation.

The mother, who wishes to give true dignity of character to her daughter, must, regardless of the sneers of ignorance, proceed on a plan diametrically opposite to that which Rousseau has recommended with all the deluding charms of eloquence and philosophical sophistry: for his eloquence renders absurdities plausible, and his dogmatic conclusions puzzle, without convincing those who have not ability to refute them.

Throughout the whole animal kingdom every young creature requires almost continual exercise, and the infancy of children, conformable to this intimation, should be passed in harmless gambols, that exercise the feet and hands, without requiring very minute direction from the head, or the constant attention of a nurse. In fact, the care necessary for self-preservation is the first natural exercise of the understanding, as little inventions to amuse the present moment unfold the imagination. But these wise designs of nature are counteracted by mistaken fondness or blind zeal. The child is not left a moment to its own direction, particularly a girl, and thus rendered dependent—dependence is called natural.

To preserve personal beauty, woman's glory! the limbs and faculties are cramped with worse than Chinese bands, and the sedentary life which they are condemned to live, whilst boys frolic in the open air, weakens the muscles and relaxes the nerves. As for Rousseau's remarks, which have since been echoed by several writers, that they have naturally, that is from their birth, independent of education, a fondness for dolls, dressing, and talking, they are so puerile as not to merit a serious refutation. That a girl, condemned to sit for hours together listening to the idle chat of weak nurses or to attend at her mother's toilet, will endeavour to join the conversation, is, indeed very natural; and that she will imitate her mother or aunts, and amuse herself by adorning her lifeless doll, as they do in dressing her, poor innocent babe! is undoubtedly a most natural consequence. For men of the greatest abilities have seldom had sufficient strength to rise above the surrounding atmosphere; and, if the page of genius has always been blurred by the prejudices of the age, some allowance should be made for a sex, who, like kings, always see things through a false medium.

In this manner may the fondness for dress, conspicuous in women, be easily accounted for, without supposing it the result of a desire to please the sex on which they are dependent. The absurdity, in short, of supposing that a girl is naturally a coquette, and that a desire connected with the impulse of nature to propagate the species, should appear even before an improper education has, by heating the imagination, called it forth prematurely, is so unphilosophical, that such a sagacious observer as Rousseau would not have adopted it, if he had not been accustomed to make reason give way to his desire of singularity, and truth to a favourite paradox.

Yet thus to give a sex to mind was not very consistent with the principles of a man who argued so warmly, and so well, for the immortality of the soul. But what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an hypothesis! Rousseau respected—almost adored virtue—and yet allowed himself to love with sensual fondness. His imagination constantly prepared inflammable fuel for his inflammable senses; but, in order to reconcile his respect for self-denial, fortitude and those heroic virtues, which a mind like his could not coolly admire, he labours to invert the law of nature, and broaches a doctrine pregnant with mischief, and derogatory to the character of supreme wisdom.

His ridiculous stories, which tend to prove that girls are NATURALLY attentive to their persons, without laying any stress on daily example, are below contempt. And that a little miss should have such a correct taste as to neglect the pleasing amusement of making O's, merely because she perceived that it was an ungraceful attitude, should be selected with the anecdotes of the learned pig.

I have, probably, had an opportunity of observing more girls in their infancy than J. J. Rousseau. I can recollect my own feelings, and I have looked steadily around me; yet, so far from coinciding with him in opinion respecting the first dawn of the female character, I will venture to affirm, that a girl, whose spirits have not been damped by inactivity, or innocence tainted by false shame, will always be a romp, and the doll will never excite attention unless confinement allows her no alternative. Girls and boys, in short, would play harmless together, if the distinction of sex was not inculcated long before nature makes any difference. I will, go further, and affirm, as an indisputable fact, that most of the women, in the circle of my observation, who have acted like rational creatures, or shown any vigour of intellect, have accidentally been allowed to run wild, as some of the elegant formers of the fair sex would insinuate.

The baneful consequences which flow from inattention to health during infancy, and youth, extend further than is supposed, dependence of body naturally produces dependence of mind; and how can she be a good wife or mother, the greater part of whose time is employed to guard against or endure sickness; nor can it be expected, that a woman will resolutely endeavour to strengthen her constitution and abstain from enervating indulgences, if artificial notions of beauty, and false descriptions of sensibility, have been early entangled with her motives of action. Most men are sometimes obliged to bear with bodily inconveniences, and to endure, occasionally, the inclemency of the elements; but genteel women are, literally speaking, slaves to their bodies, and glory in their subjection.

I once knew a weak woman of fashion, who was more than commonly proud of her delicacy and sensibility. She thought a distinguishing taste and puny appetite the height of all human perfection, and acted accordingly. I have seen this weak sophisticated being neglect all the duties of life, yet recline with self-complacency on a sofa, and boast of her want of appetite as a proof of delicacy that extended to, or, perhaps, arose from, her exquisite sensibility: for it is difficult to render intelligible such ridiculous jargon. Yet, at the moment, I have seen her insult a worthy old gentlewoman, whom unexpected misfortunes had made dependent on her ostentatious bounty, and who, in better days, had claims on her gratitude. Is it possible that a human creature should have become such a weak and depraved being, if, like the Sybarites, dissolved in luxury, every thing like virtue had not been worn away, or never impressed by precept, a poor substitute it is true, for cultivation of mind, though it serves as a fence against vice?

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

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

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

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

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

Women, it is true, obtaining power by unjust means, by practising or fostering vice, evidently lose the rank which reason would assign them, and they become either abject slaves or capricious tyrants. They lose all simplicity, all dignity of mind, in acquiring power, and act as men are observed to act when they have been exalted by the same means.

It is time to effect a revolution in female manners, time to restore to them their lost dignity, and make them, as a part of the human species, labour by reforming themselves to reform the world. It is time to separate unchangeable morals from local manners. If men be demi-gods, why let us serve them! And if the dignity of the female soul be as disputable as that of animals, if their reason does not afford sufficient light to direct their conduct whilst unerring instinct is denied, they are surely of all creatures the most miserable and, bent beneath the iron hand of destiny, must submit to be a FAIR DEFECT in creation. But to justify the ways of providence respecting them, by pointing out some irrefragable reason for thus making such a large portion of mankind accountable and not accountable, would puzzle the subtlest casuist.

The only solid foundation for morality appears to be the character of the Supreme Being; the harmony of which arises from a balance of attributes; and, to speak with reverence, one attribute seems to imply the NECESSITY of another. He must be just, because he is wise, he must be good, because he is omnipotent. For, to exalt one attribute at the expense of another equally noble and necessary, bears the stamp of the warped reason of man, the homage of passion. Man, accustomed to bow down to power in his savage state, can seldom divest himself of this barbarous prejudice even when civilization determines how much superior mental is to bodily strength; and his reason is clouded by these crude opinions, even when he thinks of the Deity. His omnipotence is made to swallow up, or preside over his other attributes, and those mortals are supposed to limit his power irreverently, who think that it must be regulated by his wisdom.

I disclaim that species of humility which, after investigating nature, stops at the author. The high and lofty One, who inhabiteth eternity, doubtless possesses many attributes of which we can form no conception; but reason tells me that they cannot clash with those I adore, and I am compelled to listen to her voice.

It seems natural for man to search for excellence, and either to trace it in the object that he worships, or blindly to invest it with perfection as a garment. But what good effect can the latter mode of worship have on the moral conduct of a rational being? He bends to power; he adores a dark cloud, which may open a bright prospect to him, or burst in angry, lawless fury on his devoted head, he knows not why. And, supposing that the Deity acts from the vague impulse of an undirected will, man must also follow his own, or act according to rules, deduced from principles which he disclaims as irreverent. Into this dilemma have both enthusiasts and cooler thinkers fallen, when they laboured to free men from the wholesome restraints which a just conception of the character of God imposes.

It is not impious thus to scan the attributes of the Almighty: in fact, who can avoid it that exercises his faculties? for to love God as the fountain of wisdom, goodness, and power, appears to be the only worship useful to a being who wishes to acquire either virtue or knowledge. A blind unsettled affection may, like human passions, occupy the mind and warm the heart, whilst, to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with our God, is forgotten. I shall pursue this subject still further, when I consider religion in a light opposite to that recommended by Dr. Gregory, who treats it as a matter of sentiment or taste.

To return from this apparent digression. It were to be wished, that women would cherish an affection for their husbands, founded on the same principle that devotion ought to rest upon. No other firm base is there under heaven, for let them beware of the fallacious light of sentiment; too often used as a softer phrase for sensuality. It follows then, I think, that from their infancy women should either be shut up like eastern princes, or educated in such a manner as to be able to think and act for themselves.

Why do men halt between two opinions, and expect impossibilities? Why do they expect virtue from a slave, or from a being whom the constitution of civil society has rendered weak, if not vicious?

Still I know that it will require a considerable length of time to eradicate the firmly rooted prejudices which sensualists have planted; it will also require some time to convince women that they act contrary to their real interest on an enlarged scale, when they cherish or affect weakness under the name of delicacy, and to convince the world that the poisoned source of female vices and follies, if it be necessary, in compliance with custom, to use synonymous terms in a lax sense, has been the sensual homage paid to beauty: to beauty of features; for it has been shrewdly observed by a German writer, that a pretty woman, as an object of desire, is generally allowed to be so by men of all descriptions; whilst a fine woman, who inspires more sublime emotions by displaying intellectual beauty, may be overlooked or observed with indifference, by those men who find their happiness in the gratification of their appetites. I foresee an obvious retort; whilst man remains such an imperfect being as he appears hitherto to have been, he will, more or less, be the slave of his appetites; and those women obtaining most power who gratify a predominant one, the sex is degraded by a physical, if not by a moral necessity.

This objection has, I grant, some force; but while such a sublime precept exists, as, "be pure as your heavenly father is pure;" it would seem that the virtues of man are not limited by the Being who alone could limit them; and that he may press forward without considering whether he steps out of his sphere by indulging such a noble ambition. To the wild billows it has been said, "thus far shalt thou go, and no further; and here shall thy proud waves be stayed." Vainly then do they beat and foam, restrained by the power 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 itself from the shackles of matter, contributes to, instead of disturbing, the order of creation, when, co-operating with the Father of spirits, it tries to govern itself by the invariable rule that, in a degree, before which our imagination faints, the universe is regulated.

Besides, if women are educated for dependence, that is, to act according to the will of another fallible being, and submit, right or wrong, to power, where are we to stop? Are they to be considered as viceregents, allowed to reign over a small domain, and answerable for their conduct to a higher tribunal, liable to error?

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

But, supposing a woman, trained up to obedience, be married to a sensible man, who directs her judgment, without making her feel the servility of her subjection, to act with as much propriety by this reflected light as can be expected when reason is taken at second hand, yet she cannot ensure the life of her protector; he may die and leave her with a large family.

A double duty devolves on her; to educate them in the character of both father and mother; to form their principles and secure their property. But, alas! she has never thought, much less acted for herself. She has only learned to please men, to depend gracefully on them; yet, encumbered with children, how is she to obtain another protector; a husband to supply the place of reason? A rational man, for we are not treading on romantic ground, though he may think her a pleasing docile creature, will not choose to marry a FAMILY for love, when the world contains many more pretty creatures. What is then to become of her? She either falls an easy prey to some mean fortune hunter, who defrauds her children of their paternal inheritance, and renders her miserable; or becomes the victim of discontent and blind indulgence. Unable to educate her sons, or impress them with respect; for it is not a play on words to assert, that people are never respected, though filling an important station, who are not respectable; she pines under the anguish of unavailing impotent regret. The serpent's tooth enters into her very soul, and the vices of licentious youth bring her with sorrow, if not with poverty also, to the grave.

This is not an overcharged picture; on the contrary, it is a very possible case, and something similar must have fallen under every attentive eye.

I have, however, taken it for granted, that she was well disposed, though experience shows, that the blind may as easily be led into a ditch as along the beaten road. But supposing, no very improbable conjecture, that a being only taught to please must still find her happiness in pleasing; what an example of folly, not to say vice, will she be to her innocent daughters! The mother will be lost in the coquette, and, instead of making friends of her daughters, view them with eyes askance, for they are rivals—rivals more cruel than any other, because they invite a comparison, and drive her from the throne of beauty, who has never thought of a seat on the bench of reason.

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

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

Let fancy now present a woman with a tolerable understanding, for I do not wish to leave the line of mediocrity, whose constitution, strengthened by exercise, has allowed her body to acquire its full vigour; her mind, at the same time, gradually expanding itself to comprehend the moral duties of life, and in what human virtue and dignity consist. Formed thus by the relative duties of her station, she marries from affection, without losing sight of prudence, and looking beyond matrimonial felicity, she secures her husband's respect before it is necessary to exert mean arts to please him, and feed a dying flame, which nature doomed to expire when the object became familiar, when friendship and forbearance take place of a more ardent affection. This is the natural death of love, and domestic peace is not destroyed by struggles to prevent its extinction. I also suppose the husband to be virtuous; or she is still more in want of independent principles.

Fate, however, breaks this tie. She is left a widow, perhaps, without a sufficient provision: but she is not desolate! The pang of nature is felt; but after time has softened sorrow into melancholy resignation, her heart turns to her children with redoubled fondness, and anxious to provide for them, affection gives a sacred heroic cast to her maternal duties. She thinks that not only the eye sees her virtuous efforts, from whom all her comfort now must flow, and whose approbation is life; but her imagination, a little abstracted and exalted by grief, dwells on the fond hope, that the eyes which her trembling hand closed, may still see how she subdues every wayward passion to fulfil the double duty of being the father as well as the mother of her children. Raised to heroism by misfortunes, she represses the first faint dawning of a natural inclination, before it ripens into love, and in the bloom of life forgets her sex—forgets the pleasure of an awakening passion, which might again have been inspired and returned. She no longer thinks of pleasing, and conscious dignity prevents her from priding herself on account of the praise which her conduct demands. Her children have her love, and her brightest hopes are beyond the grave, where her imagination often strays.

I think I see her surrounded by her children, reaping the reward of her care. The intelligent eye meets her's, whilst health and innocence smile on their chubby cheeks, and as they grow up the cares of life are lessened by their grateful attention. She lives to see the virtues which she endeavoured to plant on principles, fixed into habits, to see her children attain a strength of character sufficient to enable them to endure adversity without forgetting their mother's example.

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

I wish to sum up what I have said in a few words, for I here throw down my gauntlet, and deny the existence of sexual virtues, not excepting modesty. For man and woman, truth, if I understand the meaning of the word, must be the same; yet the fanciful female character, so prettily drawn by poets and novelists, demanding the sacrifice of truth and sincerity, virtue becomes a relative idea, having no other foundation than utility, and of that utility men pretend arbitrarily to judge, shaping it to their own convenience.

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

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

In the superior ranks of life how seldom do we meet with a man of superior abilities, or even common acquirements? The reason appears to me clear; the state they are born in was an unnatural one. The human character has ever been formed by the employments the individual, or class pursues; and if the faculties are not sharpened by necessity, they must remain obtuse. The argument may fairly be extended to women; for seldom occupied by serious business, the pursuit of pleasure gives that insignificancy to their character which renders the society of the GREAT so insipid. The same want of firmness, produced by a similar cause, forces them both to fly from themselves to noisy pleasures, and artificial passions, till vanity takes place of every social affection, and the characteristics of humanity can scarcely be discerned. Such are the blessings of civil governments, as they are at present organized, that wealth and female softness equally tend to debase mankind, and are produced by the same cause; but allowing women to be rational creatures they should be incited to acquire virtues which they may call their own, for how can a rational being be ennobled by any thing that is not obtained by its OWN exertions?

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

CHAPTER 4. OBSERVATIONS ON THE STATE OF DEGRADATION TO WHICH WOMAN IS REDUCED BY VARIOUS CAUSES.

That woman is naturally weak, or degraded by a concurrence of circumstances is, I think, clear. But this position I shall simply contrast with a conclusion, which I have frequently heard fall from sensible men in favour of an aristocracy: that the mass of mankind cannot be any thing, or the obsequious slaves, who patiently allow themselves to be penned up, would feel their own consequence, and spurn their chains. Men, they further observe, submit every where to oppression, when they have only to lift up their heads to throw off the yoke; yet, instead of asserting their birthright, they quietly lick the dust, and say, let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die. Women, I argue from analogy, are degraded by the same propensity to enjoy the present moment; and, at last, despise the freedom which they have not sufficient virtue to struggle to attain. But I must be more explicit.

With respect to the culture of the heart, it is unanimously allowed that sex is out of the question; but the line of subordination in the mental powers is never to be passed over. Only "absolute in loveliness," the portion of rationality granted to woman is, indeed, very scanty; for, denying her genius and judgment, it is scarcely possible to divine what remains to characterize intellect.

The stamina of immortality, if I may be allowed the phrase, is the perfectibility of human reason; for, was man created perfect, or did a flood of knowledge break in upon him, when he arrived at maturity, that precluded error, I should doubt whether his existence would be continued after the dissolution of the body. But in the present state of things, every difficulty in morals, that escapes from human discussion, and equally baffles the investigation of profound thinking, and the lightning glance of genius, is an argument on which I build my belief of the immortality of the soul. Reason is, consequentially, the simple power of improvement; or, more properly speaking, of discerning truth. Every individual is in this respect a world in itself. More or less may be conspicuous in one being than other; but the nature of reason must be the same in all, if it be an emanation of divinity, the tie that connects the creature with the Creator; for, can that soul be stamped with the heavenly image, that is not perfected by the exercise of its own reason? Yet outwardly ornamented with elaborate care, and so adorned to delight man, "that with honour he may love," (Vide Milton) the soul of woman is not allowed to have this distinction, and man, ever placed between her and reason, she is always represented as only created to see through a gross medium, and to take things on trust. But, dismissing these fanciful theories, and considering woman as a whole, let it be what it will, instead of a part of man, the inquiry is, whether she has reason or not. If she has, which, for a moment, I will take for granted, she was not created merely to be the solace of man, and the sexual should not destroy the human character.

Into this error men have, probably, been led by viewing education in a false light; not considering it as the first step to form a being advancing gradually toward perfection; (This word is not strictly just, but I cannot find a better.) but only as a preparation for life. On this sensual error, for I must call it so, has the false system of female manners been reared, which robs the whole sex of its dignity, and classes the brown and fair with the smiling flowers that only adorn the land. This has ever been the language of men, and the fear of departing from a supposed sexual character, has made even women of superior sense adopt the same sentiments. Thus understanding, strictly speaking, has been denied to woman; and instinct, sublimated into wit and cunning, for the purposes of life, has been substituted in its stead.

The power of generalizing ideas, of drawing comprehensive conclusions from individual observations, is the only acquirement for an immortal being, that really deserves the name of knowledge. Merely to observe, without endeavouring to account for any thing, may, (in a very incomplete manner) serve as the common sense of life; but where is the store laid up that is to clothe the soul when it leaves the body?

This power has not only been denied to women; but writers have insisted that it is inconsistent, with a few exceptions, with their sexual character. Let men prove this, and I shall grant that woman only exists for man. I must, however, previously remark, that the power of generalizing ideas, to any great extent, is not very common amongst men or women. But this exercise is the true cultivation of the understanding; and every thing conspires to render the cultivation of the understanding more difficult in the female than the male world.

I am naturally led by this assertion to the main subject of the present chapter, and shall now attempt to point out some of the causes that degrade the sex, and prevent women from generalizing their observations.

I shall not go back to the remote annals of antiquity to trace the history of woman; it is sufficient to allow, that she has always been either a slave or a despot, and to remark, that each of these situations equally retards the progress of reason. The grand source of female folly and vice has ever appeared to me to arise from narrowness of mind; and the very constitution of civil governments has put almost insuperable obstacles in the way to prevent the cultivation of the female understanding: yet virtue can be built on no other foundation! The same obstacles are thrown in the way of the rich, and the same consequences ensue.

Necessity has been proverbially termed the mother of invention; the aphorism may be extended to virtue. It is an acquirement, and an acquirement to which pleasure must be sacrificed, and who sacrifices pleasure when it is within the grasp, whose mind has not been opened and strengthened by adversity, or the pursuit of knowledge goaded on by necessity? Happy is it when people have the cares of life to struggle with; for these struggles prevent their becoming a prey to enervating vices, merely from idleness! But, if from their birth men and women are placed in a torrid zone, with the meridian sun of pleasure darting directly upon them, how can they sufficiently brace their minds to discharge the duties of life, or even to relish the affections that carry them out of themselves?

Pleasure is the business of a woman's life, according to the present modification of society, and while it continues to be so, little can be expected from such weak beings. Inheriting, in a lineal descent from the first fair defect in nature, the sovereignty of beauty, they have, to maintain their power, resigned their natural rights, which the exercise of reason, might have procured them, and chosen rather to be short-lived queens than labour to attain the sober pleasures that arise from equality. Exalted by their inferiority (this sounds like a contradiction) they constantly demand homage as women, though experience should teach them that the men who pride themselves upon paying this arbitrary insolent respect to the sex, with the most scrupulous exactness, are most inclined to tyrannize over, and despise the very weakness they cherish. Often do they repeat Mr. Hume's sentiments; when comparing the French and Athenian character, he alludes to women. "But what is more singular in this whimsical nation, say I to the Athenians, is, that a frolic of yours during the Saturnalia, when the slaves are served by their masters, is seriously continued by them through the whole year, and through the whole course of their lives; accompanied too with some circumstances, which still further augment the absurdity and ridicule. Your sport only elevates for a few days, those whom fortune has thrown down, and whom she too, in sport, may really elevate forever above you. But this nation gravely exalts those, whom nature has subjected to them, and whose inferiority and infirmities are absolutely incurable. The women, though without virtue, are their masters and sovereigns."

Ah! why do women, I write with affectionate solicitude, condescend to receive a degree of attention and respect from strangers, different from that reciprocation of civility which the dictates of humanity, and the politeness of civilization authorise between man and man? And why do they not discover, when "in the noon of beauty's power," that they are treated like queens only to be deluded by hollow respect, till they are led to resign, or not assume, their natural prerogatives? Confined then in cages, like the feathered race, they have nothing to do but to plume themselves, and stalk with mock-majesty from perch to perch. It is true, they are provided with food and raiment, for which they neither toil nor spin; but health, liberty, and virtue are given in exchange. But, where, amongst mankind has been found sufficient strength of mind to enable a being to resign these adventitious prerogatives; one who rising with the calm dignity of reason above opinion, dared to be proud of the privileges inherent in man? and it is vain to expect it whilst hereditary power chokes the affections, and nips reason in the bud.

The passions of men have thus placed women on thrones; and, till mankind become more reasonable, it is to be feared that women will avail themselves of the power which they attain with the least exertion, and which is the most indisputable. They will smile, yes, they will smile, though told that—

"In beauty's empire is no mean,

And woman either slave or queen,

Is quickly scorn'd when not ador'd."

But the adoration comes first, and the scorn is not anticipated.

Lewis the XIVth, in particular, spread factitious manners, and caught in a specious way, the whole nation in his toils; for establishing an artful chain of despotism, he made it the interest of the people at large, individually to respect his station, and support his power. And women, whom he flattered by a puerile attention to the whole sex, obtained in his reign that prince-like distinction so fatal to reason and virtue.

A king is always a king, and a woman always a woman: (And a wit, always a wit, might be added; for the vain fooleries of wits and beauties to obtain attention, and make conquests, are much upon a par.) his authority and her sex, ever stand between them and rational converse. With a lover, I grant she should be so, and her sensibility will naturally lead her to endeavour to excite emotion, not to gratify her vanity but her heart. This I do not allow to be coquetry, it is the artless impulse of nature, I only exclaim against the sexual desire of conquest, when the heart is out of the question.

This desire is not confined to women; "I have endeavoured," says Lord Chesterfield, "to gain the hearts of twenty women, whose persons I would not have given a fig for." The libertine who in a gust of passion, takes advantage of unsuspecting tenderness, is a saint when compared with this cold-hearted rascal; for I like to use significant words. Yet only taught to please, women are always on the watch to please, and with true heroic ardour endeavour to gain hearts merely to resign, or spurn them, when the victory is decided, and conspicuous.

I must descend to the minutiae of the subject.

I lament that women are systematically degraded by receiving the trivial attentions, which men think it manly to pay to the sex, when, in fact, they are insultingly supporting their own superiority. It is not condescension to bow to an inferior. So ludicrous, in fact, do these ceremonies appear to me, that I scarcely am able to govern my muscles, when I see a man start with eager, and serious solicitude to lift a handkerchief, or shut a door, when the LADY could have done it herself, had she only moved a pace or two.

A wild wish has just flown from my heart to my head, and I will not stifle it though it may excite a horse laugh. I do earnestly wish to see the distinction of sex confounded in society, unless where love animates the behaviour. For this distinction is, I am firmly persuaded, the foundation of the weakness of character ascribed to woman; is the cause why the understanding is neglected, whilst accomplishments are acquired with sedulous care: and the same cause accounts for their preferring the graceful before the heroic virtues.

Mankind, including every description, wish to be loved and respected for SOMETHING; and the common herd will always take the nearest road to the completion of their wishes. The respect paid to wealth and beauty is the most certain and unequivocal; and of course, will always attract the vulgar eye of common minds. Abilities and virtues are absolutely necessary to raise men from the middle rank of life into notice; and the natural consequence is notorious, the middle rank contains most virtue and abilities. Men have thus, in one station, at least, an opportunity of exerting themselves with dignity, and of rising by the exertions which really improve a rational creature; but the whole female sex are, till their character is formed, in the same condition as the rich: for they are born, I now speak of a state of civilization, with certain sexual privileges, and whilst they are gratuitously granted them, few will ever think of works of supererogation, to obtain the esteem of a small number of superior people.

When do we hear of women, who starting out of obscurity, boldly claim respect on account of their great abilities or daring virtues? Where are they to be found? "To be observed, to be attended to, to be taken notice of with sympathy, complacency, and approbation, are all the advantages which they seek." True! my male readers will probably exclaim; but let them, before they draw any conclusion, recollect, that this was not written originally as descriptive of women, but of the rich. In Dr. Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments, I have found a general character of people of rank and fortune, that in my opinion, might with the greatest propriety be applied to the female sex. I refer the sagacious reader to the whole comparison; but must be allowed to quote a passage to enforce an argument that I mean to insist on, as the one most conclusive against a sexual character. For if, excepting warriors, no great men of any denomination, have ever appeared amongst the nobility, may it not be fairly inferred, that their local situation swallowed up the man, and produced a character similar to that of women, who are LOCALIZED, if I may be allowed the word, by the rank they are placed in, by COURTESY? Women, commonly called Ladies, are not to be contradicted in company, are not allowed to exert any manual strength; and from them the negative virtues only are expected, when any virtues are expected, patience, docility, good-humour, and flexibility; virtues incompatible with any vigorous exertion of intellect. Besides by living more with each other, and to being seldom absolutely alone, they are more under the influence of sentiments than passions. Solitude and reflection are necessary to give to wishes the force of passions, and enable the imagination to enlarge the object and make it the most desirable. The same may be said of the rich; they do not sufficiently deal in general ideas, collected by impassionate thinking, or calm investigation, to acquire that strength of character, on which great resolves are built. But hear what an acute observer says of the great.

"Do the great seem insensible of the easy price at which they may acquire the public admiration? or do they seem to imagine, that to them, as to other men, it must be the purchase either of sweat or of blood? By what important accomplishments is the young nobleman instructed to support the dignity of his rank, and to render himself worthy of that superiority over his fellow citizens, to which the virtue of his ancestors had raised them? Is it by knowledge, by industry, by patience, by self-denial, or by virtue of any kind? As all his words, as all his motions are attended to, he learns an habitual regard for every circumstance of ordinary behaviour, and studies to perform all those small duties with the most exact propriety. As he is conscious how much he is observed, and how much mankind are disposed to favour all his inclinations, he acts, upon the most indifferent occasions, with that freedom and elevation which the thought of this naturally inspires. His air, his manner, his deportment all mark that elegant and graceful sense of his own superiority, which those who are born to an inferior station can hardly ever arrive at. These are the arts by which he proposes to make mankind more easily submit to his authority, and to govern their inclinations according to his own pleasure: and in this he is seldom disappointed. These arts, supported by rank and pre-eminence, are, upon ordinary occasions, sufficient to govern the world. Lewis XIV. during the greater part of his reign, was regarded, not only in France, but over all Europe, as the most perfect model of a great prince. But what were the talents and virtues, by which he acquired this great reputation? Was it by the scrupulous and inflexible justice of all his undertakings, by the immense dangers and difficulties with which they were attended, or by the unwearied and unrelenting application with which he pursued them? Was it by his extensive knowledge, by his exquisite judgment, or by his heroic valour? It was by none of these qualities. But he was, first of all, the most powerful prince in Europe, and consequently held the highest rank among kings; and then, says his historian, 'he surpassed all his courtiers in the gracefulness of his shape, and the majestic beauty of his features. The sound of his voice noble and affecting, gained those hearts which his presence intimidated. He had a step and a deportment, which could suit only him and his rank, and which would have been ridiculous in any other person. The embarrassment which he occasioned to those who spoke to him, flattered that secret satisfaction with which he felt his own superiority.' These frivolous accomplishments, supported by his rank, and, no doubt, too, by a degree of other talents and virtues, which seems, however, not to have been much above mediocrity, established this prince in the esteem of his own age, and have drawn even from posterity, a good deal of respect for his memory. Compared with these, in his own times, and in his own presence, no other virtue, it seems, appeared to have any merit. Knowledge, industry, valour, and beneficence, trembling, were abashed, and lost all dignity before them."

Woman, also, thus "in herself complete," by possessing all these

FRIVOLOUS accomplishments, so changes the nature of things,

—"That what she wills to do or say

Seems wisest, virtuousest, discreetest, best;

All higher knowledge in HER PRESENCE falls

Degraded. Wisdom in discourse with her

Loses discountenanc'd, and like folly shows;

Authority and reason on her wait."—

And all this is built on her loveliness!

In the middle rank of life, to continue the comparison, men, in their youth, are prepared for professions, and marriage is not considered as the grand feature in their lives; whilst women, on the contrary, have no other scheme to sharpen their faculties. It is not business, extensive plans, or any of the excursive flights of ambition, that engross their attention; no, their thoughts are not employed in rearing such noble structures. To rise in the world, and have the liberty of running from pleasure to pleasure, they must marry advantageously, and to this object their time is sacrificed, and their persons often legally prostituted. A man, when he enters any profession, has his eye steadily fixed on some future advantage (and the mind gains great strength by having all its efforts directed to one point) and, full of his business, pleasure is considered as mere relaxation; whilst women seek for pleasure as the main purpose of existence. In fact, from the education which they receive from society, the love of pleasure may be said to govern them all; but does this prove that there is a sex in souls? It would be just as rational to declare, that the courtiers in France, when a destructive system of despotism had formed their character, were not men, because liberty, virtue, and humanity, were sacrificed to pleasure and vanity. Fatal passions, which have ever domineered over the WHOLE race!

The same love of pleasure, fostered by the whole tendency of their education, gives a trifling turn to the conduct of women in most circumstances: for instance, they are ever anxious about secondary things; and on the watch for adventures, instead of being occupied by duties.

A man, when he undertakes a journey, has, in general the end in view; a woman thinks more of the incidental occurrences, the strange things that may possibly occur on the road; the impression that she may make on her fellow travellers; and, above all, she is anxiously intent on the care of the finery that she carries with her, which is more than ever a part of herself, when going to figure on a new scene; when, to use an apt French turn of expression, she is going to produce a sensation. Can dignity of mind exist with such trivial cares?

In short, women, in general, as well as the rich of both sexes, have acquired all the follies and vices of civilization, and missed the useful fruit. It is not necessary for me always to premise, that I speak of the condition of the whole sex, leaving exceptions out of the question. Their senses are inflamed, and their understandings neglected; consequently they become the prey of their senses, delicately termed sensibility, and are blown about by every momentary gust of feeling. They are, therefore, in a much worse condition than they would be in, were they in a state nearer to nature. Ever restless and anxious, their over exercised sensibility not only renders them uncomfortable themselves, but troublesome, to use a soft phrase, to others. All their thoughts turn on things calculated to excite emotion; and, feeling, when they should reason, their conduct is unstable, and their opinions are wavering, not the wavering produced by deliberation or progressive views, but by contradictory emotions. By fits and starts they are warm in many pursuits; yet this warmth, never concentrated into perseverance, soon exhausts itself; exhaled by its own heat, or meeting with some other fleeting passion, to which reason has never given any specific gravity, neutrality ensues. Miserable, indeed, must be that being whose cultivation of mind has only tended to inflame its passions! A distinction should be made between inflaming and strengthening them. The passions thus pampered, whilst the judgment is left unformed, what can be expected to ensue? Undoubtedly, a mixture of madness and folly!

This observation should not be confined to the FAIR sex; however, at present, I only mean to apply it to them.

Novels, music, poetry and gallantry, all tend to make women the creatures of sensation, and their character is thus formed during the time they are acquiring accomplishments, the only improvement they are excited, by their station in society, to acquire. This overstretched sensibility naturally relaxes the other powers of the mind, and prevents intellect from attaining that sovereignty which it ought to attain, to render a rational creature useful to others, and content with its own station; for the exercise of the understanding, as life advances, is the only method pointed out by nature to calm the passions.

Satiety has a very different effect, and I have often been forcibly struck by an emphatical description of damnation, when the spirit is represented as continually hovering with abortive eagerness round the defiled body, unable to enjoy any thing without the organs of sense. Yet, to their senses, are women made slaves, because it is by their sensibility that they obtain present power.

And will moralists pretend to assert, that this is the condition in which one half of the human race should be encouraged to remain with listless inactivity and stupid acquiescence? Kind instructors! what were we created for? To remain, it may be said, innocent; they mean in a state of childhood. We might as well never have been born, unless it were necessary that we should be created to enable man to acquire the noble privilege of reason, the power of discerning good from evil, whilst we lie down in the dust from whence we were taken, never to rise again.

It would be an endless task to trace the variety of meannesses, cares, and sorrows, into which women are plunged by the prevailing opinion, that they were created rather to feel than reason, and that all the power they obtain, must be obtained by their charms and weakness; "Fine by defect, and amiably weak!"

And, made by this amiable weakness entirely dependent, excepting what they gain by illicit sway, on man, not only for protection, but advice, is it surprising that, neglecting the duties that reason alone points out, and shrinking from trials calculated to strengthen their minds, they only exert themselves to give their defects a graceful covering, which may serve to heighten their charms in the eye of the voluptuary, though it sink them below the scale of moral excellence?

Fragile in every sense of the word, they are obliged to look up to man for every comfort. In the most trifling dangers they cling to their support, with parasitical tenacity, piteously demanding succour; and their NATURAL protector extends his arm, or lifts up his voice, to guard the lovely trembler—from what? Perhaps the frown of an old cow, or the jump of a mouse; a rat, would be a serious danger. In the name of reason, and even common sense, what can save such beings from contempt; even though they be soft and fair?

These fears, when not affected, may be very pretty; but they shew a degree of imbecility, that degrades a rational creature in a way women are not aware of—for love and esteem are very distinct things.

I am fully persuaded, that we should hear of none of these infantine airs, if girls were allowed to take sufficient exercise and not confined in close rooms till their muscles are relaxed and their powers of digestion destroyed. To carry the remark still further, if fear in girls, instead of being cherished, perhaps, created, were treated in the same manner as cowardice in boys, we should quickly see women with more dignified aspects. It is true, they could not then with equal propriety be termed the sweet flowers that smile in the walk of man; but they would be more respectable members of society, and discharge the important duties of life by the light of their own reason. "Educate women like men," says Rousseau, "and the more they resemble our sex the less power will they have over us." This is the very point I aim at. I do not wish them to have power over men; but over themselves.

In the same strain have I heard men argue against instructing the poor; for many are the forms that aristocracy assumes. "Teach them to read and write," say they, "and you take them out of the station assigned them by nature." An eloquent Frenchman, has answered them; I will borrow his sentiments. But they know not, when they make man a brute, that they may expect every instant to see him transformed into a ferocious beast. Without knowledge there can be no morality!

Ignorance is a frail base for virtue! Yet, that it is the condition for which woman was organized, has been insisted upon by the writers who have most vehemently argued in favour of the superiority of man; a superiority not in degree, but essence; though, to soften the argument, they have laboured to prove, with chivalrous generosity, that the sexes ought not to be compared; man was made to reason, woman to feel: and that together, flesh and spirit, they make the most perfect whole, by blending happily reason and sensibility into one character.

And what is sensibility? "Quickness of sensation; quickness of perception; delicacy." Thus is it defined by Dr. Johnson; and the definition gives me no other idea than of the most exquisitely polished instinct. I discern not a trace of the image of God in either sensation or matter. Refined seventy times seven, they are still material; intellect dwells not there; nor will fire ever make lead gold!

I come round to my old argument; if woman be allowed to have an immortal soul, she must have as the employment of life, an understanding to improve. And when, to render the present state more complete, though every thing proves it to be but a fraction of a mighty sum, she is incited by present gratification to forget her grand destination. Nature is counteracted, or she was born only to procreate and rot. Or, granting brutes, of every description, a soul, though not a reasonable one, the exercise of instinct and sensibility may be the step, which they are to take, in this life, towards the attainment of reason in the next; so that through all eternity they will lag behind man, who, why we cannot tell, had the power given him of attaining reason in his first mode of existence.

When I treat of the peculiar duties of women, as I should treat of the peculiar duties of a citizen or father, it will be found that I do not mean to insinuate, that they should be taken out of their families, speaking of the majority. "He that hath wife and children," says Lord Bacon, "hath given hostages to fortune; for they are impediments to great enterprises, either of virtue or mischief. Certainly the best works, and of greatest merit for the public, have proceeded from the unmarried or childless men." I say the same of women. But, the welfare of society is not built on extraordinary exertions; and were it more reasonably organized, there would be still less need of great abilities, or heroic virtues. In the regulation of a family, in the education of children, understanding, in an unsophisticated sense, is particularly required: strength both of body and mind; yet the men who, by their writings, have most earnestly laboured to domesticate women, have endeavoured by arguments dictated by a gross appetite, that satiety had rendered fastidious, to weaken their bodies and cramp their minds. But, if even by these sinister methods they really PERSUADED women, by working on their feelings, to stay at home, and fulfil the duties of a mother and mistress of a family, I should cautiously oppose opinions that led women to right conduct, by prevailing on them to make the discharge of a duty the business of life, though reason were insulted. Yet, and I appeal to experience, if by neglecting the understanding they are as much, nay, more attached from these domestic duties, than they could be by the most serious intellectual pursuit, though it may be observed, that the mass of mankind will never vigorously pursue an intellectual object, I may be allowed to infer, that reason is absolutely necessary to enable a woman to perform any duty properly, and I must again repeat, that sensibility is not reason.

The comparison with the rich still occurs to me; for, when men neglect the duties of humanity, women will do the same; a common stream hurries them both along with thoughtless celerity. Riches and honours prevent a man from enlarging his understanding, and enervate all his powers, by reversing the order of nature, which has ever made true pleasure the reward of labour. Pleasure—enervating pleasure is, likewise, within woman's reach without earning it. But, till hereditary possessions are spread abroad, how can we expect men to be proud of virtue? And, till they are, women will govern them by the most direct means, neglecting their dull domestic duties, to catch the pleasure that is on the wing of time.

"The power of women," says some author, "is her sensibility;" and men not aware of the consequence, do all they can to make this power swallow up every other. Those who constantly employ their sensibility will have most: for example; poets, painters, and composers. Yet, when the sensibility is thus increased at the expense of reason, and even the imagination, why do philosophical men complain of their fickleness? The sexual attention of man particularly acts on female sensibility, and this sympathy has been exercised from their youth up. A husband cannot long pay those attentions with the passion necessary to excite lively emotions, and the heart, accustomed to lively emotions, turns to a new lover, or pines in secret, the prey of virtue or prudence. I mean when the heart has really been rendered susceptible, and the taste formed; for I am apt to conclude, from what I have seen in fashionable life, that vanity is oftener fostered than sensibility by the mode of education, and the intercourse between the sexes, which I have reprobated; and that coquetry more frequently proceeds from vanity than from that inconstancy, which overstrained sensibility naturally produces.

Another argument that has had a great weight with me, must, I think, have some force with every considerate benevolent heart. Girls, who have been thus weakly educated, are often cruelly left by their parents without any provision; and, of course, are dependent on, not only the reason, but the bounty of their brothers. These brothers are, to view the fairest side of the question, good sort of men, and give as a favour, what children of the same parents had an equal right to. In this equivocal humiliating situation, a docile female may remain some time, with a tolerable degree of comfort. But, when the brother marries, a probable circumstance, from being considered as the mistress of the family, she is viewed with averted looks as an intruder, an unnecessary burden on the benevolence of the master of the house, and his new partner.

Who can recount the misery, which many unfortunate beings, whose minds and bodies are equally weak, suffer in such situations—unable to work and ashamed to beg? The wife, a cold-hearted, narrow-minded woman, and this is not an unfair supposition; for the present mode of education does not tend to enlarge the heart any more than the understanding, is jealous of the little kindness which her husband shows to his relations; and her sensibility not rising to humanity, she is displeased at seeing the property of HER children lavished on an helpless sister.

These are matters of fact, which have come under my eye again and again. The consequence is obvious, the wife has recourse to cunning to undermine the habitual affection, which she is afraid openly to oppose; and neither tears nor caresses are spared till the spy is worked out of her home, and thrown on the world, unprepared for its difficulties; or sent, as a great effort of generosity, or from some regard to propriety, with a small stipend, and an uncultivated mind into joyless solitude.

These two women may be much upon a par, with respect to reason and humanity; and changing situations, might have acted just the same selfish part; but had they been differently educated, the case would also have been very different. The wife would not have had that sensibility, of which self is the centre, and reason might have taught her not to expect, and not even to be flattered by the affection of her husband, if it led him to violate prior duties. She would wish not to love him, merely because he loved her, but on account of his virtues; and the sister might have been able to struggle for herself, instead of eating the bitter bread of dependence.

I am, indeed, persuaded that the heart, as well as the understanding, is opened by cultivation; and by, which may not appear so clear, strengthening the organs; I am not now talking of momentary flashes of sensibility, but of affections. And, perhaps, in the education of both sexes, the most difficult task is so to adjust instruction as not to narrow the understanding, whilst the heart is warmed by the generous juices of spring, just raised by the electric fermentation of the season; nor to dry up the feelings by employing the mind in investigations remote from life.

With respect to women, when they receive a careful education, they are either made fine ladies, brimful of sensibility, and teeming with capricious fancies; or mere notable women. The latter are often friendly, honest creatures, and have a shrewd kind of good sense joined with worldly prudence, that often render them more useful members of society than the fine sentimental lady, though they possess neither greatness of mind nor taste. The intellectual world is shut against them; take them out of their family or neighbourhood, and they stand still; the mind finding no employment, for literature affords a fund of amusement, which they have never sought to relish, but frequently to despise. The sentiments and taste of more cultivated minds appear ridiculous, even in those whom chance and family connexions have led them to love; but in mere acquaintance they think it all affectation.

A man of sense can only love such a woman on account of her sex, and respect her, because she is a trusty servant. He lets her, to preserve his own peace, scold the servants, and go to church in clothes made of the very best materials. A man of her own size of understanding would, probably, not agree so well with her; for he might wish to encroach on her prerogative, and manage some domestic concerns himself. Yet women, whose minds are not enlarged by cultivation, or the natural selfishness of sensibility expanded by reflection, are very unfit to manage a family; for by an undue stretch of power, they are always tyrannizing to support a superiority that only rests on the arbitrary distinction of fortune. The evil is sometimes more serious, and domestics are deprived of innocent indulgences, and made to work beyond their strength, in order to enable the notable woman to keep a better table, and outshine her neighbours in finery and parade. If she attend to her children, it is, in general, to dress them in a costly manner—and, whether, this attention arises from vanity or fondness, it is equally pernicious.

Besides, how many women of this description pass their days, or, at least their evenings, discontentedly. Their husbands acknowledge that they are good managers, and chaste wives; but leave home to seek for more agreeable, may I be allowed to use a significant French word, piquant society; and the patient drudge, who fulfils her task, like a blind horse in a mill, is defrauded of her just reward; for the wages due to her are the caresses of her husband; and women who have so few resources in themselves, do not very patiently bear this privation of a natural right.

A fine lady, on the contrary, has been taught to look down with contempt on the vulgar employments of life; though she has only been incited to acquire accomplishments that rise a degree above sense; for even corporeal accomplishments cannot be acquired with any degree of precision, unless the understanding has been strengthened by exercise. Without a foundation of principles taste is superficial; and grace must arise from something deeper than imitation. The imagination, however, is heated, and the feelings rendered fastidious, if not sophisticated; or, a counterpoise of judgment is not acquired, when the heart still remains artless, though it becomes too tender.

These women are often amiable; and their hearts are really more sensible to general benevolence, more alive to the sentiments that civilize life, than the square elbowed family drudge; but, wanting a due proportion of reflection and self-government, they only inspire love; and are the mistresses of their husbands, whilst they have any hold on their affections; and the platonic friends of his male acquaintance. These are the fair defects in nature; the women who appear to be created not to enjoy the fellowship of man, but to save him from sinking into absolute brutality, by rubbing off the rough angles of his character; and by playful dalliance to give some dignity to the appetite that draws him to them. Gracious Creator of the whole human race! hast thou created such a being as woman, who can trace thy wisdom in thy works, and feel that thou alone art by thy nature, exalted above her—for no better purpose? Can she believe that she was only made to submit to man her equal; a being, who, like her, was sent into the world to acquire virtue? Can she consent to be occupied merely to please him; merely to adorn the earth, when her soul is capable of rising to thee? And can she rest supinely dependent on man for reason, when she ought to mount with him the arduous steeps of knowledge?

Yet, if love be the supreme good, let women be only educated to inspire it, and let every charm be polished to intoxicate the senses; but, if they are moral beings, let them have a chance to become intelligent; and let love to man be only a part of that glowing flame of universal love, which, after encircling humanity, mounts in grateful incense to God.

To fulfil domestic duties much resolution is necessary, and a serious kind of perseverance that requires a more firm support than emotions, however lively and true to nature. To give an example of order, the soul of virtue, some austerity of behaviour must be adopted, scarcely to be expected from a being who, from its infancy, has been made the weathercock of its own sensations. Whoever rationally means to be useful, must have a plan of conduct; and, in the discharge of the simplest duty, we are often obliged to act contrary to the present impulse of tenderness or compassion. Severity is frequently the most certain, as well as the most sublime proof of affection; and the want of this power over the feelings, and of that lofty, dignified affection, which makes a person prefer the future good of the beloved object to a present gratification, is the reason why so many fond mothers spoil their children, and has made it questionable, whether negligence or indulgence is most hurtful: but I am inclined to think, that the latter has done most harm.

Mankind seem to agree, that children should be left under the management of women during their childhood. Now, from all the observation that I have been able to make, women of sensibility are the most unfit for this task, because they will infallibly, carried away by their feelings, spoil a child's temper. The management of the temper, the first and most important branch of education, requires the sober steady eye of reason; a plan of conduct equally distant from tyranny and indulgence; yet these are the extremes that people of sensibility alternately fall into; always shooting beyond the mark. I have followed this train of reasoning much further, till I have concluded, that a person of genius is the most improper person to be employed in education, public or private. Minds of this rare species see things too much in masses, and seldom, if ever, have a good temper. That habitual cheerfulness, termed good humour, is, perhaps, as seldom united with great mental powers, as with strong feelings. And those people who follow, with interest and admiration, the flights of genius; or, with cooler approbation suck in the instruction, which has been elaborately prepared for them by the profound thinker, ought not to be disgusted, if they find the former choleric, and the latter morose; because liveliness of fancy, and a tenacious comprehension of mind, are scarcely compatible with that pliant urbanity which leads a man, at least to bend to the opinions and prejudices of others, instead of roughly confronting them.

But, treating of education or manners, minds of a superior class are not to be considered, they may be left to chance; it is the multitude, with moderate abilities, who call for instruction, and catch the colour of the atmosphere they breathe. This respectable concourse, I contend, men and women, should not have their sensations heightened in the hot-bed of luxurious indolence, at the expence of their understanding; for, unless there be a ballast of understanding, they will never become either virtuous or free: an aristocracy, founded on property, or sterling talents, will ever sweep before it, the alternately timid and ferocious slaves of feeling.

Numberless are the arguments, to take another view of the subject, brought forward with a show of reason; because supposed to be deduced from nature, that men have used morally and physically to degrade the sex. I must notice a few.

The female understanding has often been spoken of with contempt, as arriving sooner at maturity than the male. I shall not answer this argument by alluding to the early proofs of reason, as well as genius, in Cowley, Milton, and Pope, (Many other names might be added.) but only appeal to experience to decide whether young men, who are early introduced into company (and examples now abound) do not acquire the same precocity. So notorious is this fact, that the bare mentioning of it must bring before people, who at all mix in the world, the idea of a number of swaggering apes of men whose understandings are narrowed by being brought into the society of men when they ought to have been spinning a top or twirling a hoop.

It has also been asserted, by some naturalists, that men do not attain their full growth and strength till thirty; but that women arrive at maturity by twenty. I apprehend that they reason on false ground, led astray by the male prejudice, which deems beauty the perfection of woman—mere beauty of features and complexion, the vulgar acceptation of the world, whilst male beauty is allowed to have some connexion with the mind. Strength of body, and that character of countenance, which the French term a physionomie, women do not acquire before thirty, any more than men. The little artless tricks of children, it is true, are particularly pleasing and attractive; yet, when the pretty freshness of youth is worn off, these artless graces become studied airs, and disgust every person of taste. In the countenance of girls we only look for vivacity and bashful modesty; but, the springtide of life over, we look for soberer sense in the face, and for traces of passion, instead of the dimples of animal spirits; expecting to see individuality of character, the only fastener of the affections. We then wish to converse, not to fondle; to give scope to our imaginations, as well as to the sensations of our hearts.

At twenty the beauty of both sexes is equal; but the libertinism of man leads him to make the distinction, and superannuated coquettes are commonly of the same opinion; for when they can no longer inspire love, they pay for the vigour and vivacity of youth. The French who admit more of mind into their notions of beauty, give the preference to women of thirty. I mean to say, that they allow women to be in their most perfect state, when vivacity gives place to reason, and to that majestic seriousness of character, which marks maturity; or, the resting point. In youth, till twenty the body shoots out; till thirty the solids are attaining a degree of density; and the flexible muscles, growing daily more rigid, give character to the countenance; that is, they trace the operations of the mind with the iron pen of fate, and tell us not only what powers are within, but how they have been employed.

It is proper to observe, that animals who arrive slowly at maturity, are the longest lived, and of the noblest species. Men cannot, however, claim any natural superiority from the grandeur of longevity; for in this respect nature has not distinguished the male.

Polygamy is another physical degradation; and a plausible argument for a custom, that blasts every domestic virtue, is drawn from the well-attested fact, that in the countries where it is established, more females are born than males. This appears to be an indication of nature, and to nature apparently reasonable speculations must yield. A further conclusion obviously presents itself; if polygamy be necessary, woman must be inferior to man, and made for him.

With respect to the formation of the foetus in the womb, we are very ignorant; but it appears to me probable, that an accidental physical cause may account for this phenomenon, and prove it not to be a law of nature. I have met with some pertinent observations on the subject in Forster's Account of the Isles of the South Sea, that will explain my meaning. After observing that of the two sexes amongst animals, the most vigorous and hottest constitution always prevails, and produces its kind; he adds,—"If this be applied to the inhabitants of Africa, it is evident that the men there, accustomed to polygamy, are enervated by the use of so many women, and therefore less vigorous; the women on the contrary, are of a hotter constitution, not only on account of their more irritable nerves, more sensitive organization, and more lively fancy; but likewise because they are deprived in their matrimony of that share of physical love which in a monogamous condition, would all be theirs; and thus for the above reasons, the generality of children are born females."

"In the greater part of Europe it has been proved by the most accurate lists of mortality, that the proportion of men to women is nearly equal, or, if any difference takes place, the males born are more numerous, in the proportion of 105 to 100."

The necessity of polygamy, therefore, does not appear; yet when a man seduces a woman, it should I think, be termed a LEFT-HANDED marriage, and the man should be LEGALLY obliged to maintain the woman and her children, unless adultery, a natural divorcement, abrogated the law. And this law should remain in force as long as the weakness of women caused the word seduction to be used as an excuse for their frailty and want of principle; nay, while they depend on man for a subsistence, instead of earning it by the exercise of their own hands or heads. But these women should not in the full meaning of the relationship, be termed wives, or the very purpose of marriage would be subverted, and all those endearing charities that flow from personal fidelity, and give a sanctity to the tie, when neither love nor friendship unites the hearts, would melt into selfishness. The woman who is faithful to the father of her children demands respect, and should not be treated like a prostitute; though I readily grant, that if it be necessary for a man and woman to live together in order to bring up their offspring, nature never intended that a man should have more than one wife.

Still, highly as I respect marriage, as the foundation of almost every social virtue, I cannot avoid feeling the most lively compassion for those unfortunate females who are broken off from society, and by one error torn from all those affections and relationships that improve the heart and mind. It does not frequently even deserve the name of error; for many innocent girls become the dupes of a sincere affectionate heart, and still more are, as it may emphatically be termed, RUINED before they know the difference between virtue and vice: and thus prepared by their education for infamy, they become infamous. Asylums and Magdalens are not the proper remedies for these abuses. It is justice, not charity, that is wanting in the world!

A woman who has lost her honour, imagines that she cannot fall lower, and as for recovering her former station, it is impossible; no exertion can wash this stain away. Losing thus every spur, and having no other means of support, prostitution becomes her only refuge, and the character is quickly depraved by circumstances over which the poor wretch has little power, unless she possesses an uncommon portion of sense and loftiness of spirit. Necessity never makes prostitution the business of men's lives; though numberless are the women who are thus rendered systematically vicious. This, however, arises, in a great degree, from the state of idleness in which women are educated, who are always taught to look up to man for a maintenance, and to consider their persons as the proper return for his exertions to support them. Meretricious airs, and the whole science of wantonness, has then a more powerful stimulus than either appetite or vanity; and this remark gives force to the prevailing opinion, that with chastity all is lost that is respectable in woman. Her character depends on the observance of one virtue, though the only passion fostered in her heart—is love. Nay the honour of a woman is not made even to depend on her will.

When Richardson makes Clarissa tell Lovelace that he had robbed her of her honour, he must have had strange notions of honour and virtue. For, miserable beyond all names of misery is the condition of a being, who could be degraded without its own consent! This excess of strictness I have heard vindicated as a salutary error. I shall answer in the words of Leibnitz—"Errors are often useful; but it is commonly to remedy other errors."

Most of the evils of life arise from a desire of present enjoyment that outruns itself. The obedience required of women in the marriage state, comes under this description; the mind, naturally weakened by depending on authority, never exerts its own powers, and the obedient wife is thus rendered a weak indolent mother. Or, supposing that this is not always the consequence, a future state of existence is scarcely taken into the reckoning when only negative virtues are cultivated. For in treating of morals, particularly when women are alluded to, writers have too often considered virtue in a very limited sense, and made the foundation of it SOLELY worldly utility; nay, a still more fragile base has been given to this stupendous fabric, and the wayward fluctuating feelings of men have been made the standard of virtue. Yes, virtue as well as religion, has been subjected to the decisions of taste.

It would almost provoke a smile of contempt, if the vain absurdities of man did not strike us on all sides, to observe, how eager men are to degrade the sex from whom they pretend to receive the chief pleasure of life; and I have frequently, with full conviction, retorted Pope's sarcasm on them; or, to speak explicitly, it has appeared to me applicable to the whole human race. A love of pleasure or sway seems to divide mankind, and the husband who lords it in his little harem, thinks only of his pleasure or his convenience. To such lengths, indeed, does an intemperate love of pleasure carry some prudent men, or worn out libertines, who marry to have a safe companion, that they seduce their own wives. Hymen banishes modesty, and chaste love takes its flight.

Love, considered as an animal appetite, cannot long feed on itself without expiring. And this extinction, in its own flame, may be termed the violent death of love. But the wife who has thus been rendered licentious, will probably endeavour to fill the void left by the loss of her husband's attentions; for she cannot contentedly become merely an upper servant after having been treated like a goddess. She is still handsome, and, instead of transferring her fondness to her children, she only dreams of enjoying the sunshine of life. Besides, there are many husbands so devoid of sense and parental affection, that during the first effervescence of voluptuous fondness, they refuse to let their wives suckle their children. They are only to dress and live to please them: and love, even innocent love, soon sinks into lasciviousness when the exercise of a duty is sacrificed to its indulgence.

Personal attachment is a very happy foundation for friendship; yet, when even two virtuous young people marry, it would, perhaps, be happy if some circumstance checked their passion; if the recollection of some prior attachment, or disappointed affection, made it on one side, at least, rather a match founded on esteem. In that case they would look beyond the present moment, and try to render the whole of life respectable, by forming a plan to regulate a friendship which only death ought to dissolve.

Friendship is a serious affection; the most sublime of all affections, because it is founded on principle, and cemented by time. The very reverse may be said of love. In a great degree, love and friendship cannot subsist in the same bosom; even when inspired by different objects they weaken or destroy each other, and for the same object can only be felt in succession. The vain fears and fond jealousies, the winds which fan the flame of love, when judiciously or artfully tempered, are both incompatible with the tender confidence and sincere respect of friendship.

Love, such as the glowing pen of genius has traced, exists not on earth, or only resides in those exalted, fervid imaginations that have sketched such dangerous pictures. Dangerous, because they not only afford a plausible excuse to the voluptuary, who disguises sheer sensuality under a sentimental veil; but as they spread affectation, and take from the dignity of virtue. Virtue, as the very word imports, should have an appearance of seriousness, if not austerity; and to endeavour to trick her out in the garb of pleasure, because the epithet has been used as another name for beauty, is to exalt her on a quicksand; a most insidious attempt to hasten her fall by apparent respect. Virtue, and pleasure are not, in fact, so nearly allied in this life as some eloquent writers have laboured to prove. Pleasure prepares the fading wreath, and mixes the intoxicating cup; but the fruit which virtue gives, is the recompence of toil: and, gradually seen as it ripens, only affords calm satisfaction; nay, appearing to be the result of the natural tendency of things, it is scarcely observed. Bread, the common food of life, seldom thought of as a blessing, supports the constitution, and preserves health; still feasts delight the heart of man, though disease and even death lurk in the cup or dainty that elevates the spirits or tickles the palate. The lively heated imagination in the same style, draws the picture of love, as it draws every other picture, with those glowing colours, which the daring hand will steal from the rainbow that is directed by a mind, condemned, in a world like this, to prove its noble origin, by panting after unattainable perfection; ever pursuing what it acknowledges to be a fleeting dream. An imagination of this vigorous cast can give existence to insubstantial forms, and stability to the shadowy reveries which the mind naturally falls into when realities are found vapid. It can then depict love with celestial charms, and dote on the grand ideal object; it can imagine a degree of mutual affection that shall refine the soul, and not expire when it has served as a "scale to heavenly;" and, like devotion, make it absorb every meaner affection and desire. In each other's arms, as in a temple, with its summit lost in the clouds, the world is to be shut out, and every thought and wish, that do not nurture pure affection and permanent virtue. Permanent virtue! alas! Rousseau, respectable visionary! thy paradise would soon be violated by the entrance of some unexpected guest. Like Milton's, it would only contain angels, or men sunk below the dignity of rational creatures. Happiness is not material, it cannot be seen or felt! Yet the eager pursuit of the good which every one shapes to his own fancy, proclaims man the lord of this lower world, and to be an intelligential creature, who is not to receive, but acquire happiness. They, therefore, who complain of the delusions of passion, do not recollect that they are exclaiming against a strong proof of the immortality of the soul.

But, leaving superior minds to correct themselves, and pay dearly for their experience, it is necessary to observe, that it is not against strong, persevering passions; but romantic, wavering feelings, that I wish to guard the female heart by exercising the understanding; for these paradisiacal reveries are oftener the effect of idleness than of a lively fancy.

Women have seldom sufficient serious employment to silence their feelings; a round of little cares, or vain pursuits, frittering away all strength of mind and organs, they become naturally only objects of sense. In short, the whole tenor of female education (the education of society) tends to render the best disposed, romantic and inconstant; and the remainder vain and mean. In the present state of society, this evil can scarcely be remedied, I am afraid, in the slightest degree; should a more laudable ambition ever gain ground, they may be brought nearer to nature and reason, and become more virtuous and useful as they grow more respectable.

But I will venture to assert, that their reason will never acquire sufficient strength to enable it to regulate their conduct, whilst the making an appearance in the world is the first wish of the majority of mankind. To this weak wish the natural affections and the most useful virtues are sacrificed. Girls marry merely to BETTER THEMSELVES, to borrow a significant vulgar phrase, and have such perfect power over their hearts as not to permit themselves to FALL IN LOVE till a man with a superior fortune offers. On this subject I mean to enlarge in a future chapter; it is only necessary to drop a hint at present, because women are so often degraded by suffering the selfish prudence of age to chill the ardour of youth.

>From the same source flows an opinion that young girls ought to dedicate great part of their time to needle work; yet, this employment contracts their faculties more than any other that could have been chosen for them, by confining their thoughts to their persons. Men order their clothes to be made, and have done with the subject; women make their own clothes, necessary or ornamental, and are continually talking about them; and their thoughts follow their hands. It is not indeed the making of necessaries that weakens the mind; but the frippery of dress. For when a woman in the lower rank of life makes her husband's and children's clothes, she does her duty, this is part of her business; but when women work only to dress better than they could otherwise afford, it is worse than sheer loss of time. To render the poor virtuous, they must be employed, and women in the middle rank of life did they not ape the fashions of the nobility, without catching their ease, might employ them, whilst they themselves managed their families, instructed their children, and exercised their own minds. Gardening, experimental philosophy, and literature, would afford them subjects to think of, and matter for conversation, that in some degree would exercise their understandings. The conversation of French women, who are not so rigidly nailed to their chairs, to twist lappets, and knot ribbands, is frequently superficial; but, I contend, that it is not half so insipid as that of those English women, whose time is spent in making caps, bonnets, and the whole mischief of trimmings, not to mention shopping, bargain-hunting, etc. etc.: and it is the decent, prudent women, who are most degraded by these practices; for their motive is simply vanity. The wanton, who exercises her taste to render her person alluring, has something more in view.

These observations all branch out of a general one, which I have before made, and which cannot be too often insisted upon, for, speaking of men, women, or professions, it will be found, that the employment of the thoughts shapes the character both generally and individually. The thoughts of women ever hover around their persons, and is it surprising that their persons are reckoned most valuable? Yet some degree of liberty of mind is necessary even to form the person; and this may be one reason why some gentle wives have so few attractions beside that of sex. Add to this, sedentary employments render the majority of women sickly, and false notions of female excellence make them proud of this delicacy, though it be another fetter, that by calling the attention continually to the body, cramps the activity of the mind.

Women of quality seldom do any of the manual part of their dress, consequently only their taste is exercised, and they acquire, by thinking less of the finery, when the business of their toilet is over, that ease, which seldom appears in the deportment of women, who dress merely for the sake of dressing. In fact, the observation with respect to the middle rank, the one in which talents thrive best, extends not to women; for those of the superior class, by catching, at least a smattering of literature, and conversing more with men, on general topics, acquire more knowledge than the women who ape their fashions and faults without sharing their advantages. With respect to virtue, to use the word in a comprehensive sense, I have seen most in low life. Many poor women maintain their children by the sweat of their brow, and keep together families that the vices of the fathers would have scattered abroad; but gentlewomen are too indolent to be actively virtuous, and are softened rather than refined by civilization. Indeed the good sense which I have met with among the poor women who have had few advantages of education, and yet have acted heroically, strongly confirmed me in the opinion, that trifling employments have rendered women a trifler. Men, taking her ('I take her body,' says Ranger.) body, the mind is left to rust; so that while physical love enervates man, as being his favourite recreation, he will endeavour to enslave woman: and who can tell how many generations may be necessary to give vigour to the virtue and talents of the freed posterity of abject slaves? ('Supposing that women are voluntary slaves—slavery of any kind is unfavourable to human happiness and improvement.'—'Knox's Essays'.)

In tracing the causes that in my opinion, have degraded woman, I have confined my observations to such as universally act upon the morals and manners of the whole sex, and to me it appears clear, that they all spring from want of understanding. Whether this arises from a physical or accidental weakness of faculties, time alone can determine; for I shall not lay any great stress upon the example of a few women (Sappho, Eloisa, Mrs. Macaulay, the Empress of Russia, Madame d'Eon, etc. These, and many more, may be reckoned exceptions; and, are not all heroes, as well as heroines, exceptions to general rules? I wish to see women neither heroines nor brutes; but reasonable creatures.) who, from having received a masculine education, have acquired courage and resolution; I only contend that the men who have been placed in similar situations have acquired a similar character, I speak of bodies of men, and that men of genius and talents have started out of a class, in which women have never yet been placed.

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

CHAPTER 5. ANIMADVERSIONS ON SOME OF THE WRITERS WHO HAVE RENDERED WOMEN OBJECTS OF PITY, BORDERING ON CONTEMPT.

The opinions speciously supported, in some modern publications on the female character, and education, which have given the tone to most of the observations made, in a more cursory manner, on the sex, remain now to be examined.

SECTION 5.1.

I shall begin with Rousseau, and give a sketch of the character of women in his own words, interspersing comments and reflections. My comments, it is true, will all spring from a few simple principles, and might have been deduced from what I have already said; but the artificial structure has been raised with so much ingenuity, that it seems necessary to attack it in a more circumstantial manner, and make the application myself.

Sophia, says Rousseau, should be as perfect a woman as Emilius is a man, and to render her so, it is necessary to examine the character which nature has given to the sex.

He then proceeds to prove, that women ought to be weak and passive, because she has less bodily strength than man; and from hence infers, that she was formed to please and to be subject to him; and that it is her duty to render herself AGREEABLE to her master—this being the grand end of her existence.

Supposing women to have been formed only to please, and be subject to man, the conclusion is just, she ought to sacrifice every other consideration to render herself agreeable to him: and let this brutal desire of self-preservation be the grand spring of all her actions, when it is proved to be the iron bed of fate, to fit which, her character should be stretched or contracted, regardless of all moral or physical distinctions. But if, as I think may be demonstrated, the purposes of even this life, viewing the whole, are subverted by practical rules built upon this ignoble base, I may be allowed to doubt whether woman was created for man: and though the cry of irreligion, or even atheism be raised against me, I will simply declare, that were an angel from heaven to tell me that Moses's beautiful, poetical cosmogony, and the account of the fall of man, were literally true, I could not believe what my reason told me was derogatory to the character of the Supreme Being: and, having no fear of the devil before mine eyes, I venture to call this a suggestion of reason, instead of resting my weakness on the broad shoulders of the first seducer of my frail sex.

"It being once demonstrated," continues Rousseau, "that man and woman are not, nor ought to be, constituted alike in temperament and character, it follows of course, that they should not be educated in the same manner. In pursuing the directions of nature, they ought indeed to act in concert, but they should not be engaged in the same employments: the end of their pursuits should be the same, but the means they should take to accomplish them, and, of consequence, their tastes and inclinations should be different." (Rousseau's 'Emilius', Volume 3 page 176.)

"Girls are from their earliest infancy fond of dress. Not content with being pretty, they are desirous of being thought so; we see, by all their little airs, that this thought engages their attention; and they are hardly capable of understanding what is said to them, before they are to be governed by talking to them of what people will think of their behaviour. The same motive, however, indiscreetly made use of with boys, has not the same effect: provided they are let to pursue their amusements at pleasure, they care very little what people think of them. Time and pains are necessary to subject boys to this motive.

"Whencesoever girls derive this first lesson it is a very good one. As the body is born, in a manner before the soul, our first concern should be to cultivate the former; this order is common to both sexes, but the object of that cultivation is different. In the one sex it is the developement of corporeal powers; in the other, that of personal charms: not that either the quality of strength or beauty ought to be confined exclusively to one sex; but only that the order of the cultivation of both is in that respect reversed. Women certainly require as much strength as to enable them to move and act gracefully, and men as much address as to qualify them to act with ease."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"Children of both sexes have a great many amusements in common; and so they ought; have they not also many such when they are grown up? Each sex has also its peculiar taste to distinguish in this particular. Boys love sports of noise and activity; to beat the drum, to whip the top, and to drag about their little carts: girls, on the other hand, are fonder of things of show and ornament; such as mirrors, trinkets, and dolls; the doll is the peculiar amusement of the females; from whence we see their taste plainly adapted to their destination. The physical part of the art of pleasing lies in dress; and this is all which children are capacitated to cultivate of that art."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"Here then we see a primary propensity firmly established, which you need only to pursue and regulate. The little creature will doubtless be very desirous to know how to dress up her doll, to make its sleeve knots, its flounces, its head dress, etc., she is obliged to have so much recourse to the people about her, for their assistance in these articles, that it would be much more agreeable to her to owe them all to her own industry. Hence we have a good reason for the first lessons which are usually taught these young females: in which we do not appear to be setting them a task, but obliging them, by instructing them in what is immediately useful to themselves. And, in fact, almost all of them learn with reluctance to read and write; but very readily apply themselves to the use of their needles. They imagine themselves already grown up, and think with pleasure that such qualifications will enable them to decorate themselves."

This is certainly only an education of the body; but Rousseau is not the only man who has indirectly said that merely the person of a young woman, without any mind, unless animal spirits come under that description, is very pleasing. To render it weak, and what some may call beautiful, the understanding is neglected, and girls forced to sit still, play with dolls, and listen to foolish conversations; the effect of habit is insisted upon as an undoubted indication of nature. I know it was Rousseau's opinion that the first years of youth should be employed to form the body, though in educating Emilius he deviates from this plan; yet the difference between strengthening the body, on which strength of mind in a great measure depends, and only giving it an easy motion, is very wide.

Rousseau's observations, it is proper to remark, were made in a country where the art of pleasing was refined only to extract the grossness of vice. He did not go back to nature, or his ruling appetite disturbed the operations of reason, else he would not have drawn these crude inferences.

In France, boys and girls, particularly the latter, are only educated to please, to manage their persons, and regulate their exterior behaviour; and their minds are corrupted at a very early age, by the worldly and pious cautions they receive, to guard them against immodesty. I speak of past times. The very confessions which mere children are obliged to make, and the questions asked by the holy men I assert these facts on good authority, were sufficient to impress a sexual character; and the education of society was a school of coquetry and art. At the age of ten or eleven; nay, often much sooner, girls began to coquet, and talked, unreproved, of establishing themselves in the world by marriage.

In short, they were made women, almost from their very birth, and compliments were listened to instead of instruction. These, weakening the mind, Nature was supposed to have acted like a step-mother, when she formed this after-thought of creation.

Not allowing them understanding, however, it was but consistent to subject them to authority, independent of reason; and to prepare them for this subjection, he gives the following advice:

"Girls ought to be active and diligent; nor is that all; they should also be early subjected to restraint. This misfortune, if it really be one, is inseparable from their sex; nor do they ever throw it off but to suffer more cruel evils. They must be subject, all their lives, to the most constant and severe restraint, which is that of decorum: it is, therefore, necessary to accustom them early to such confinement, that it may not afterward cost them too dear; and to the suppression of their caprices, that they may the more readily submit to the will of others. If, indeed, they are fond of being always at work, they should be sometimes compelled to lay it aside. Dissipation, levity, and inconstancy, are faults that readily spring up from their first propensities, when corrupted or perverted by too much indulgence. To prevent this abuse, we should learn them, above all things, to lay a due restraint on themselves. The life of a modest woman is reduced, by our absurd institutions, to a perpetual conflict with herself: not but it is just that this sex should partake of the sufferings which arise from those evils it hath caused us."

And why is the life of a modest woman a perpetual conflict? I should answer, that this very system of education makes it so. Modesty, temperance, and self-denial, are the sober offspring of reason; but when sensibility is nurtured at the expense of the understanding, such weak beings must be restrained by arbitrary means, and be subjected to continual conflicts; but give their activity of mind a wider range, and nobler passions and motives will govern their appetites and sentiments.

"The common attachment and regard of a mother, nay, mere habit, will make her beloved by her children, if she does nothing to incur their hate. Even the restraint she lays them under, if well directed, will increase their affection, instead of lessening it; because a state of dependence being natural to the sex, they perceive themselves formed for obedience."

This is begging the question; for servitude not only debases the individual, but its effects seem to be transmitted to posterity. Considering the length of time that women have been dependent, is it surprising that some of them hug their chains, and fawn like the spaniel? "These dogs," observes a naturalist, "at first kept their ears erect; but custom has superseded nature, and a token of fear is become a beauty."

"For the same reason," adds Rousseau, "women have or ought to have, but little liberty; they are apt to indulge themselves excessively in what is allowed them. Addicted in every thing to extremes, they are even more transported at their diversions than boys."

The answer to this is very simple. Slaves and mobs have always indulged themselves in the same excesses, when once they broke loose from authority. The bent bow recoils with violence, when the hand is suddenly relaxed that forcibly held it: and sensibility, the plaything of outward circumstances, must be subjected to authority, or moderated by reason.

"There results," he continues, "from this habitual restraint, a tractableness which the women have occasion for during their whole lives, as they constantly remain either under subjection to the men, or to the opinions of mankind; and are never permitted to set themselves above those opinions. The first and most important qualification in a woman is good-nature or sweetness of temper; formed to obey a being so imperfect as man, often full of vices, and always full of faults, she ought to learn betimes even to suffer injustice, and to bear the insults of a husband without complaint; it is not for his sake, but her own, that she should be of a mild disposition. The perverseness and ill-nature of the women only serve to aggravate their own misfortunes, and the misconduct of their husbands; they might plainly perceive that such are not the arms by which they gain the superiority."

Formed to live with such an imperfect being as man, they ought to learn from the exercise of their faculties the necessity of forbearance; but all the sacred rights of humanity are violated by insisting on blind obedience; or, the most sacred rights belong ONLY to man.

The being who patiently endures injustice, and silently bears insults, will soon become unjust, or unable to discern right from wrong. Besides, I deny the fact, this is not the true way to form or meliorate the temper; for, as a sex, men have better tempers than women, because they are occupied by pursuits that interest the head as well as the heart; and the steadiness of the head gives a healthy temperature to the heart. People of sensibility have seldom good tempers. The formation of the temper is the cool work of reason, when, as life advances, she mixes with happy art, jarring elements. I never knew a weak or ignorant person who had a good temper, though that constitutional good humour, and that docility, which fear stamps on the behaviour, often obtains the name. I say behaviour, for genuine meekness never reached the heart or mind, unless as the effect of reflection; and, that simple restraint produces a number of peccant humours in domestic life, many sensible men will allow, who find some of these gentle irritable creatures, very troublesome companions.

"Each sex," he further argues, "should preserve its peculiar tone and manner: a meek husband may make a wife impertinent; but mildness of disposition on the woman's side will always bring a man back to reason, at least if he be not absolutely a brute, and will sooner or later triumph over him." True, the mildness of reason; but abject fear always inspires contempt; and tears are only eloquent when they flow down fair cheeks.

Of what materials can that heart be composed, which can melt when insulted, and instead of revolting at injustice, kiss the rod? Is it unfair to infer, that her virtue is built on narrow views and selfishness, who can caress a man, with true feminine softness, the very moment when he treats her tyrannically? Nature never dictated such insincerity; and though prudence of this sort be termed a virtue, morality becomes vague when any part is supposed to rest on falsehood. These are mere expedients, and expedients are only useful for the moment.

Let the husband beware of trusting too implicitly to this servile obedience; for if his wife can with winning sweetness caress him when angry, and when she ought to be angry, unless contempt had stifled a natural effervescence, she may do the same after parting with a lover. These are all preparations for adultery; or, should the fear of the world, or of hell, restrain her desire of pleasing other men, when she can no longer please her husband, what substitute can be found by a being who was only formed by nature and art to please man? what can make her amends for this privation, or where is she to seek for a fresh employment? where find sufficient strength of mind to determine to begin the search, when her habits are fixed, and vanity has long ruled her chaotic mind?

But this partial moralist recommends cunning systematically and plausibly.

"Daughters should be always submissive; their mothers, however, should not be inexorable. To make a young person tractable, she ought not to be made unhappy; to make her modest she ought not to be rendered stupid. On the contrary, I should not be displeased at her being permitted to use some art, not to elude punishment in case of disobedience, but to exempt herself from the necessity of obeying. It is not necessary to make her dependence burdensome, but only to let her feel it. Subtilty is a talent natural to the sex; and as I am persuaded, all our natural inclinations are right and good in themselves, I am of opinion this should be cultivated as well as the others: it is requisite for us only to prevent its abuse."

"Whatever is, is right," he then proceeds triumphantly to infer. Granted; yet, perhaps, no aphorism ever contained a more paradoxical assertion. It is a solemn truth with respect to God. He, reverentially I speak, sees the whole at once, and saw its just proportions in the womb of time; but man, who can only inspect disjointed parts, finds many things wrong; and it is a part of the system, and therefore right, that he should endeavour to alter what appears to him to be so, even while he bows to the wisdom of his Creator, and respects the darkness he labours to disperse.

The inference that follows is just, supposing the principle to be sound: "The superiority of address, peculiar to the female sex, is a very equitable indemnification for their inferiority in point of strength: without this, woman would not be the companion of man; but his slave: it is by her superiour art and ingenuity that she preserves her equality, and governs him while she affects to obey. Woman has every thing against her, as well our faults as her own timidity and weakness: she has nothing in her favour, but her subtilty and her beauty. Is it not very reasonable, therefore, she should cultivate both?" Greatness of mind can never dwell with cunning or address; for I shall not boggle about words, when their direct signification is insincerity and falsehood; but content myself with observing, that if any class of mankind be so created that it must necessarily be educated by rules, not strictly deducible from truth, virtue is an affair of convention. How could Rousseau dare to assert, after giving this advice, that in the grand end of existence, the object of both sexes should be the same, when he well knew, that the mind formed by its pursuits, is expanded by great views swallowing up little ones, or that it becomes itself little?

Men have superiour strength of body; but were it not for mistaken notions of beauty, women would acquire sufficient to enable them to earn their own subsistence, the true definition of independence; and to bear those bodily inconveniences and exertions that are requisite to strengthen the mind.

Let us then, by being allowed to take the same exercise as boys, not only during infancy, but youth, arrive at perfection of body, that we may know how far the natural superiority of man extends. For what reason or virtue can be expected from a creature when the seed-time of life is neglected? None—did not the winds of heaven casually scatter many useful seeds in the fallow ground.

"Beauty cannot be acquired by dress, and coquetry is an art not so early and speedily attained. While girls are yet young, however, they are in a capacity to study agreeable gesture, a pleasing modulation of voice, an easy carriage and behaviour; as well as to take the advantage of gracefully adapting their looks and attitudes to time, place, and occasion. Their application, therefore, should not be solely confined to the arts of industry and the needle, when they come to display other talents, whose utility is already apparent." "For my part I would have a young Englishwoman cultivate her agreeable talents, in order to please her future husband, with as much care and assiduity as a young Circassian cultivates her's, to fit her for the Haram of an Eastern bashaw."

To render women completely insignificant, he adds,—"The tongues of women are very voluble; they speak earlier, more readily, and more agreeably than the men; they are accused also of speaking much more: but so it ought to be, and I should be very ready to convert this reproach into a compliment; their lips and eyes have the same activity, and for the same reason. A man speaks of what he knows, a woman of what pleases her; the one requires knowledge, the other taste; the principal object of a man's discourse should be what is useful, that of a woman's what is agreeable. There ought to be nothing in common between their different conversation but truth."

"We ought not, therefore, to restrain the prattle of girls, in the same manner as we should that of boys, with that severe question, 'To what purpose are you talking?' but by another, which is no less difficult to answer, 'How will your discourse be received?' In infancy, while they are as yet incapable to discern good from evil, they ought to observe it as a law, never to say any thing disagreeable to those whom they are speaking to: what will render the practice of this rule also the more difficult, is, that it must ever be subordinate to the former, of never speaking falsely or telling an untruth." To govern the tongue in this manner must require great address indeed; and it is too much practised both by men and women. Out of the abundance of the heart how few speak! So few, that I, who love simplicity, would gladly give up politeness for a quarter of the virtue that has been sacrificed to an equivocal quality, which, at best, should only be the polish of virtue.

But to complete the sketch. "It is easy to be conceived, that if male children be not in a capacity to form any true notions of religion, those ideas must be greatly above the conception of the females: it is for this very reason, I would begin to speak to them the earlier on this subject; for if we were to wait till they were in a capacity to discuss methodically such profound questions, we should run a risk of never speaking to them on this subject as long as they lived. Reason in women is a practical reason, capacitating them artfully to discover the means of attaining a known end, but which would never enable them to discover that end itself. The social relations of the sexes are indeed truly admirable: from their union there results a moral person, of which woman may be termed the eyes, and man the hand, with this dependence on each other, that it is from the man that the woman is to learn what she is to see, and it is of the woman that man is to learn what he ought to do. If woman could recur to the first principles of things as well as man, and man was capacitated to enter into their minutae as well as woman, always independent of each other, they would live in perpetual discord, and their union could not subsist. But in the present harmony which naturally subsists between them, their different faculties tend to one common end; it is difficult to say which of them conduces the most to it: each follows the impulse of the other; each is obedient, and both are masters."

"As the conduct of a woman is subservient to the public opinion, her faith in matters of religion, should for that very reason, be subject to authority. 'Every daughter ought to be of the same religion as her mother, and every wife to be of the same religion as her husband: for, though such religion should be false, that docility which induces the mother and daughter to submit to the order of nature, takes away, in the sight of God, the criminality of their error'. As they are not in a capacity to judge for themselves, they ought to abide by the decision of their fathers and husbands as confidently as by that of the church."

"As authority ought to regulate the religion of the women, it is not so needful to explain to them the reasons for their belief, as to lay down precisely the tenets they are to believe: for the creed, which presents only obscure ideas to the mind, is the source of fanaticism; and that which presents absurdities, leads to infidelity."

Absolute, uncontroverted authority, it seems, must subsist somewhere: but is not this a direct and exclusive appropriation of reason? The RIGHTS of humanity have been thus confined to the male line from Adam downwards. Rousseau would carry his male aristocracy still further, for he insinuates, that he should not blame those, who contend for leaving woman in a state of the most profound ignorance, if it were not necessary, in order to preserve her chastity, and justify the man's choice in the eyes of the world, to give her a little knowledge of men, and the customs produced by human passions; else she might propagate at home without being rendered less voluptuous and innocent by the exercise of her understanding: excepting, indeed, during the first year of marriage, when she might employ it to dress, like Sophia. "Her dress is extremely modest in appearance, and yet very coquettish in fact: she does not make a display of her charms, she conceals them; but, in concealing them, she knows how to affect your imagination. Every one who sees her, will say, There is a modest and discreet girl; but while you are near her, your eyes and affections wander all over her person, so that you cannot withdraw them; and you would conclude that every part of her dress, simple as it seems, was only put in its proper order to be taken to pieces by the imagination." Is this modesty? Is this a preparation for immortality? Again. What opinion are we to form of a system of education, when the author says of his heroine, "that with her, doing things well is but a SECONDARY concern; her principal concern is to do them NEATLY."

Secondary, in fact, are all her virtues and qualities, for, respecting religion, he makes her parents thus address her, accustomed to submission—"Your husband will instruct you in good time."

After thus cramping a woman's mind, if, in order to keep it fair, he has not made it quite a blank, he advises her to reflect, that a reflecting man may not yawn in her company, when he is tired of caressing her. What has she to reflect about, who must obey? and would it not be a refinement on cruelty only to open her mind to make the darkness and misery of her fate VISIBLE? Yet these are his sensible remarks; how consistent with what I have already been obliged to quote, to give a fair view of the subject, the reader may determine.

"They who pass their whole lives in working for their daily bread, have no ideas beyond their business or their interest, and all their understanding seems to lie in their fingers' ends. This ignorance is neither prejudicial to their integrity nor their morals; it is often of service to them. Sometimes, by means of reflection, we are led to compound with our duty, and we conclude, by substituting a jargon of words, in the room of things. Our own conscience is the most enlightened philosopher. There is no need of being acquainted with Tully's offices, to make a man of probity: and perhaps the most virtuous woman in the world is the least acquainted with the definition of virtue. But it is no less true, than an improved understanding only can render society agreeable; and it is a melancholy thing for a father of a family, who is fond of home, to be obliged to be always wrapped up in himself, and to have nobody about him to whom he can impart his sentiments.

"Besides, how should a woman void of reflection be capable of educating her children? How should she discern what is proper for them? How should she incline them to those virtues she is unacquainted with, or to that merit of which she has no idea? She can only sooth or chide them; render them insolent or timid; she will make them formal coxcombs, or ignorant blockheads; but will never make them sensible or amiable." How indeed should she, when her husband is not always at hand to lend her his reason —when they both together make but one moral being? A blind will, "eyes without hands," would go a very little way; and perchance his abstract reason, that should concentrate the scattered beams of her practical reason, may be employed in judging of the flavour of wine, discanting on the sauces most proper for turtle; or, more profoundly intent at a card-table, he may be generalizing his ideas as he bets away his fortune, leaving all the minutiae of education to his helpmate or chance.

But, granting that woman ought to be beautiful, innocent, and silly, to render her a more alluring and indulgent companion—what is her understanding sacrificed for? And why is all this preparation necessary only, according to Rousseau's own account, to make her the mistress of her husband, a very short time? For no man ever insisted more on the transient nature of love. Thus speaks the philosopher. "Sensual pleasures are transient. The habitual state of the affections always loses by their gratification. The imagination, which decks the object of our desires, is lost in fruition. Excepting the Supreme Being, who is self-existent, there is nothing beautiful but what is ideal."

But he returns to his unintelligible paradoxes again, when he thus addresses Sophia. "Emilius, in becoming your husband, is become your master, and claims your obedience. Such is the order of nature. When a man is married, however, to such a wife as Sophia, it is proper he should be directed by her: this is also agreeable to the order of nature: it is, therefore, to give you as much authority over his heart as his sex gives him over your person, that I have made you the arbiter of his pleasures. It may cost you, perhaps, some disagreeable self-denial; but you will be certain of maintaining your empire over him, if you can preserve it over yourself; what I have already observed, also shows me, that this difficult attempt does not surpass your courage.

"Would you have your husband constantly at your feet? keep him at some distance from your person. You will long maintain the authority of love, if you know but how to render your favours rare and valuable. It is thus you may employ even the arts of coquetry in the service of virtue, and those of love in that of reason."

I shall close my extracts with a just description of a comfortable couple. "And yet you must not imagine, that even such management will always suffice. Whatever precaution be taken, enjoyment will, by degrees, take off the edge of passion. But when love hath lasted as long as possible, a pleasing habitude supplies its place, and the attachment of a mutual confidence succeeds to the transports of passion. Children often form a more agreeable and permanent connexion between married people than even love itself. When you cease to be the mistress of Emilius, you will continue to be his wife and friend; you will be the mother of his children." (Rousseau's Emilius.)

Children, he truly observes, form a much more permanent connexion between married people than love. Beauty he declares will not be valued, or even seen, after a couple have lived six months together; artificial graces and coquetry will likewise pall on the senses: why then does he say, that a girl should be educated for her husband with the same care as for an eastern haram?

I now appeal from the reveries of fancy and refined licentiousness to the good sense of mankind, whether, if the object of education be to prepare women to become chaste wives and sensible mothers, the method so plausibly recommended in the foregoing sketch, be the one best calculated to produce those ends? Will it be allowed that the surest way to make a wife chaste, is to teach her to practise the wanton arts of a mistress, termed virtuous coquetry by the sensualist who can no longer relish the artless charms of sincerity, or taste the pleasure arising from a tender intimacy, when confidence is unchecked by suspicion, and rendered interesting by sense?

The man who can be contented to live with a pretty useful companion without a mind, has lost in voluptuous gratifications a taste for more refined enjoyments; he has never felt the calm satisfaction that refreshes the parched heart, like the silent dew of heaven—of being beloved by one who could understand him. In the society of his wife he is still alone, unless when the man is sunk in the brute. "The charm of life," says a grave philosophical reasoner, is "sympathy; nothing pleases us more than to observe in other men a fellow-feeling with all the emotions of our own breast."

But, according to the tenor of reasoning by which women are kept from the tree of knowledge, the important years of youth, the usefulness of age, and the rational hopes of futurity, are all to be sacrificed, to render woman an object of desire for a short time. Besides, how could Rousseau expect them to be virtuous and constant when reason is neither allowed to be the foundation of their virtue, nor truth the object of their inquiries?

But all Rousseau's errors in reasoning arose from sensibility, and sensibility to their charms women are very ready to forgive! When he should have reasoned he became impassioned, and reflection inflamed his imagination, instead of enlightening his understanding. Even his virtues also led him farther astray; for, born with a warm constitution and lively fancy, nature carried him toward the other sex with such eager fondness, that he soon became lascivious. Had he given way to these desires, the fire would have extinguished itself in a natural manner, but virtue, and a romantic kind of delicacy, made him practise self-denial; yet, when fear, delicacy, or virtue restrained him, he debauched his imagination; and reflecting on the sensations to which fancy gave force, he traced them in the most glowing colours, and sunk them deep into his soul.

He then sought for solitude, not to sleep with the man of nature; or calmly investigate the causes of things under the shade where Sir Isaac Newton indulged contemplation, but merely to indulge his feelings. And so warmly has he painted what he forcibly felt, that, interesting the heart and inflaming the imagination of his readers; in proportion to the strength of their fancy, they imagine that their understanding is convinced, when they only sympathize with a poetic writer, who skilfully exhibits the objects of sense, most voluptuously shadowed, or gracefully veiled; and thus making us feel, whilst dreaming that we reason, erroneous conclusions are left in the mind.

Why was Rousseau's life divided between ecstasy and misery? Can any other answer be given than this, that the effervescence of his imagination produced both; but, had his fancy been allowed to cool, it is possible that he might have acquired more strength of mind. Still, if the purpose of life be to educate the intellectual part of man, all with respect to him was right; yet, had not death led to a nobler scene of action, it is probable that he would have enjoyed more equal happiness on earth, and have felt the calm sensations of the man of nature, instead of being prepared for another stage of existence by nourishing the passions which agitate the civilized man.

But peace to his manes! I war not with his ashes, but his opinions. I war only with the sensibility that led him to degrade woman by making her the slave of love.

…."Curs'd vassalage,

First idoliz'd till love's hot fire be o'er,

Then slaves to those who courted us before."

Dryden.

The pernicious tendency of those books, in which the writers insidiously degrade the sex, whilst they are prostrate before their personal charms, cannot be too often or too severely exposed.

Let us, my dear contemporaries, arise above such narrow prejudices! If wisdom is desirable on its own account, if virtue, to deserve the name, must be founded on knowledge; let us endeavour to strengthen our minds by reflection, till our heads become a balance for our hearts; let us not confine all our thoughts to the petty occurrences of the day, nor our knowledge to an acquaintance with our lovers' or husbands' hearts; but let the practice of every duty be subordinate to the grand one of improving our minds, and preparing our affections for a more exalted state!

Beware then, my friends, of suffering the heart to be moved by every trivial incident: the reed is shaken by a breeze, and annually dies, but the oak stands firm, and for ages braves the storm.

Were we, indeed, only created to flutter our hour out and die—why let us then indulge sensibility, and laugh at the severity of reason. Yet, alas! even then we should want strength of body and mind, and life would be lost in feverish pleasures or wearisome languor.

But the system of education, which I earnestly wish to see exploded, seems to presuppose, what ought never to be taken for granted, that virtue shields us from the casualties of life; and that fortune, slipping off her bandage, will smile on a well-educated female, and bring in her hand an Emilius or a Telemachus. Whilst, on the contrary, the reward which virtue promises to her votaries is confined, it is clear, to their own bosoms; and often must they contend with the most vexatious worldly cares, and bear with the vices and humours of relations for whom they can never feel a friendship.

There have been many women in the world who, instead of being supported by the reason and virtue of their fathers and brothers, have strengthened their own minds by struggling with their vices and follies; yet have never met with a hero, in the shape of a husband; who, paying the debt that mankind owed them, might chance to bring back their reason to its natural dependent state, and restore the usurped prerogative, of rising above opinion, to man.

SECTION 5.2.

Dr. Fordyce's sermons have long made a part of a young woman's library; nay, girls at school are allowed to read them; but I should instantly dismiss them from my pupil's, if I wished to strengthen her understanding, by leading her to form sound principles on a broad basis; or, were I only anxious to cultivate her taste; though they must be allowed to contain many sensible observations.

Dr. Fordyce may have had a very laudable end in view; but these discourses are written in such an affected style, that were it only on that account, and had I nothing to object against his MELLIFLUOUS precepts, I should not allow girls to peruse them, unless I designed to hunt every spark of nature out of their composition, melting every human quality into female weakness and artificial grace. I say artificial, for true grace arises from some kind of independence of mind.

Children, careless of pleasing, and only anxious to amuse themselves, are often very graceful; and the nobility who have mostly lived with inferiors, and always had the command of money, acquire a graceful ease of deportment, which should rather be termed habitual grace of body, than that superiour gracefulness which is truly the expression of the mind. This mental grace, not noticed by vulgar eyes, often flashes across a rough countenance, and irradiating every feature, shows simplicity and independence of mind. It is then we read characters of immortality in the eye, and see the soul in every gesture, though when at rest, neither the face nor limbs may have much beauty to recommend them; or the behaviour, any thing peculiar to attract universal attention. The mass of mankind, however, look for more TANGIBLE beauty; yet simplicity is, in general, admired, when people do not consider what they admire; and can there be simplicity without sincerity? but, to have done with remarks that are in some measure desultory, though naturally excited by the subject.

In declamatory periods Dr. Fordyce spins out Rousseau's eloquence; and in most sentimental rant, details his opinions respecting the female character, and the behaviour which woman ought to assume to render her lovely.

He shall speak for himself, for thus he makes nature address man. "Behold these smiling innocents, whom I have graced with my fairest gifts, and committed to your protection; behold them with love and respect; treat them with tenderness and honour. They are timid and want to be defended. They are frail; O do not take advantage of their weakness! Let their fears and blushes endear them. Let their confidence in you never be abused. But is it possible, that any of you can be such barbarians, so supremely wicked, as to abuse it? Can you find in your hearts to despoil the gentle, trusting creatures of their treasure, or do any thing to strip them of their native robe of virtue? Curst be the impious hand that would dare to violate the unblemished form of Chastity! Thou wretch! thou ruffian! forbear; nor venture to provoke heaven's fiercest vengeance." I know not any comment that can be made seriously on this curious passage, and I could produce many similar ones; and some, so very sentimental, that I have heard rational men use the word indecent, when they mentioned them with disgust.

Throughout there is a display of cold, artificial feelings, and that parade of sensibility which boys and girls should be taught to despise as the sure mark of a little vain mind. Florid appeals are made to heaven, and to the BEAUTEOUS INNOCENTS, the fairest images of heaven here below, whilst sober sense is left far behind. This is not the language of the heart, nor will it ever reach it, though the ear may be tickled.

I shall be told, perhaps, that the public have been pleased with these volumes. True—and Hervey's Meditations are still read, though he equally sinned against sense and taste.

I particularly object to the lover-like phrases of pumped up passion, which are every where interspersed. If women be ever allowed to walk without leading-strings, why must they be cajoled into virtue by artful flattery and sexual compliments? Speak to them the language of truth and soberness, and away with the lullaby strains of condescending endearment! Let them be taught to respect themselves as rational creatures, and not led to have a passion for their own insipid persons. It moves my gall to hear a preacher descanting on dress and needle-work; and still more, to hear him address the 'British fair, the fairest of the fair', as if they had only feelings.

Even recommending piety he uses the following argument. "Never, perhaps, does a fine woman strike more deeply, than when, composed into pious recollection, and possessed with the noblest considerations, she assumes, without knowing it, superiour dignity and new graces; so that the beauties of holiness seem to radiate about her, and the by-standers are almost induced to fancy her already worshipping amongst her kindred angels!" Why are women to be thus bred up with a desire of conquest? the very epithet, used in this sense, gives me a sickly qualm! Does religion and virtue offer no stronger motives, no brighter reward? Must they always be debased by being made to consider the sex of their companions? Must they be taught always to be pleasing? And when levelling their small artillery at the heart of man, is it necessary to tell them that a little sense is sufficient to render their attention INCREDIBLY SOOTHING? "As a small degree of knowledge entertains in a woman, so from a woman, though for a different reason, a small expression of kindness delights, particularly if she have beauty!" I should have supposed for the same reason.

Why are girls to be told that they resemble angels; but to sink them below women? Or, that a gentle, innocent female is an object that comes nearer to the idea which we have formed of angels than any other. Yet they are told, at the same time, that they are only like angels when they are young and beautiful; consequently, it is their persons, not their virtues, that procure them this homage.

Idle empty words! what can such delusive flattery lead to, but vanity and folly? The lover, it is true, has a poetic licence to exalt his mistress; his reason is the bubble of his passion, and he does not utter a falsehood when he borrows the language of adoration. His imagination may raise the idol of his heart, unblamed, above humanity; and happy would it be for women, if they were only flattered by the men who loved them; I mean, who love the individual, not the sex; but should a grave preacher interlard his discourses with such fooleries?

In sermons or novels, however, voluptuousness is always true to its text. Men are allowed by moralists to cultivate, as nature directs, different qualities, and assume the different characters, that the same passions, modified almost to infinity, give to each individual. A virtuous man may have a choleric or a sanguine constitution, be gay or grave, unreproved; be firm till be is almost over-bearing, or, weakly submissive, have no will or opinion of his own; but all women are to be levelled, by meekness and docility, into one character of yielding softness and gentle compliance.

I will use the preacher's own words. "Let it be observed, that in your sex manly exercises are never graceful; that in them a tone and figure, as well as an air and deportment, of the masculine kind, are always forbidding; and that men of sensibility desire in every woman soft features, and a flowing voice, a form not robust, and demeanour delicate and gentle."

Is not the following portrait—the portrait of a house slave? "I am astonished at the folly of many women, who are still reproaching their husbands for leaving them alone, for preferring this or that company to theirs, for treating them with this and the other mark of disregard or indifference; when, to speak the truth, they have themselves in a great measure to blame. Not that I would justify the men in any thing wrong on their part. But had you behaved to them with more RESPECTFUL OBSERVANCE, and a more EQUAL TENDERNESS; STUDYING THEIR HUMOURS, OVERLOOKING THEIR MISTAKES, SUBMITTING TO THEIR OPINIONS in matters indifferent, passing by little instances of unevenness, caprice, or passion, giving SOFT answers to hasty words, complaining as seldom as possible, and making it your daily care to relieve their anxieties and prevent their wishes, to enliven the hour of dulness, and call up the ideas of felicity: had you pursued this conduct, I doubt not but you would have maintained and even increased their esteem, so far as to have secured every degree of influence that could conduce to their virtue, or your mutual satisfaction; and your house might at this day have been the abode of domestic bliss." Such a woman ought to be an angel—or she is an ass—for I discern not a trace of the human character, neither reason nor passion in this domestic drudge, whose being is absorbed in that of a tyrant's.

Still Dr. Fordyce must have very little acquaintance with the human heart, if he really supposed that such conduct would bring back wandering love, instead of exciting contempt. No, beauty, gentleness, etc. etc. may gain a heart; but esteem, the only lasting affection, can alone be obtained by virtue supported by reason. It is respect for the understanding that keeps alive tenderness for the person.

As these volumes are so frequently put into the hands of young people, I have taken more notice of them than strictly speaking, they deserve; but as they have contributed to vitiate the taste, and enervate the understanding of many of my fellow-creatures, I could not pass them silently over.

SECTION 5.3.

Such paternal solicitude pervades Dr. Gregory's Legacy to his daughters, that I enter on the task of criticism with affectionate respect; but as this little volume has many attractions to recommend it to the notice of the most respectable part of my sex, I cannot silently pass over arguments that so speciously support opinions which, I think, have had the most baneful effect on the morals and manners of the female world.

His easy familiar style is particularly suited to the tenor of his advice, and the melancholy tenderness which his respect for the memory of a beloved wife diffuses through the whole work, renders it very interesting; yet there is a degree of concise elegance conspicuous in many passages, that disturbs this sympathy; and we pop on the author, when we only expected to meet the—father.

Besides, having two objects in view, he seldom adhered steadily to either; for, wishing to make his daughters amiable, and fearing lest unhappiness should only be the consequence, of instilling sentiments, that might draw them out of the track of common life, without enabling them to act with consonant independence and dignity, he checks the natural flow of his thoughts, and neither advises one thing nor the other.

In the preface he tells them a mournful truth, "that they will hear, at least once in their lives, the genuine sentiments of a man, who has no interest in deceiving them."

Hapless woman! what can be expected from thee, when the beings on whom thou art said naturally to depend for reason and support, have all an interest in deceiving thee! This is the root of the evil that has shed a corroding mildew on all thy virtues; and blighting in the bud thy opening faculties, has rendered thee the weak thing thou art! It is this separate interest— this insidious state of warfare, that undermines morality, and divides mankind!

If love has made some women wretched—how many more has the cold unmeaning intercourse of gallantry rendered vain and useless! yet this heartless attention to the sex is reckoned so manly, so polite, that till society is very differently organized, I fear, this vestige of gothic manners will not be done away by a more reasonable and affectionate mode of conduct. Besides, to strip it of its imaginary dignity, I must observe, that in the most civilized European states, this lip-service prevails in a very great degree, accompanied with extreme dissoluteness of morals. In Portugal, the country that I particularly allude to, it takes place of the most serious moral obligations; for a man is seldom assassinated when in the company of a woman. The savage hand of rapine is unnerved by this chivalrous spirit; and, if the stroke of vengeance cannot be stayed—the lady is entreated to pardon the rudeness and depart in peace, though sprinkled, perhaps, with her husband's or brother's blood.

I shall pass over his strictures on religion, because I mean to discuss that subject in a separate chapter.

The remarks relative to behaviour, though many of them very sensible, I entirely disapprove of, because it appears to me to be beginning, as it were at the wrong end. A cultivated understanding, and an affectionate heart, will never want starched rules of decorum, something more substantial than seemliness will be the result; and, without understanding, the behaviour here recommended, would be rank affectation. Decorum, indeed, is the one thing needful! decorum is to supplant nature, and banish all simplicity and variety of character out of the female world. Yet what good end can all this superficial counsel produce? It is, however, much easier to point out this or that mode of behaviour, than to set the reason to work; but, when the mind has been stored with useful knowledge, and strengthened by being employed, the regulation of the behaviour may safely be left to its guidance.

Why, for instance, should the following caution be given, when art of every kind must contaminate the mind; and why entangle the grand motives of action, which reason and religion equally combine to enforce, with pitiful worldly shifts and slight of hand tricks to gain the applause of gaping tasteless fools? "Be even cautious in displaying your good sense. It will be thought you assume a superiority over the rest of the company— But if you happen to have any learning keep it a profound secret, especially from the men, who generally look with a jealous and malignant eye on a woman of great parts, and a cultivated understanding." If men of real merit, as he afterwards observes, are superior to this meanness, where is the necessity that the behaviour of the whole sex should be modulated to please fools, or men, who having little claim to respect as individuals, choose to keep close in their phalanx. Men, indeed, who insist on their common superiority, having only this sexual superiority, are certainly very excusable.

There would be no end to rules for behaviour, if it be proper always to adopt the tone of the company; for thus, for ever varying the key, a FLAT would often pass for a NATURAL note.

Surely it would have been wiser to have advised women to improve themselves till they rose above the fumes of vanity; and then to let the public opinion come round—for where are rules of accommodation to stop? The narrow path of truth and virtue inclines neither to the right nor left, it is a straight-forward business, and they who are earnestly pursuing their road, may bound over many decorous prejudices, without leaving modesty behind. Make the heart clean, and give the head employment, and I will venture to predict that there will be nothing offensive in the behaviour.

The air of fashion, which many young people are so eager to attain, always strikes me like the studied attitudes of some modern prints, copied with tasteless servility after the antiques; the soul is left out, and none of the parts are tied together by what may properly be termed character. This varnish of fashion, which seldom sticks very close to sense, may dazzle the weak; but leave nature to itself, and it will seldom disgust the wise. Besides, when a woman has sufficient sense not to pretend to any thing which she does not understand in some degree, there is no need of determining to hide her talents under a bushel. Let things take their natural course, and all will be well.

It is this system of dissimulation, throughout the volume, that I despise. Women are always to SEEM to be this and that—yet virtue might apostrophize them, in the words of Hamlet—Seems! I know not seems!—Have that within that passeth show!—

Still the same tone occurs; for in another place, after recommending, (without sufficiently discriminating) delicacy, he adds, "The men will complain of your reserve. They will assure you that a franker behaviour would make you more amiable. But, trust me, they are not sincere when they tell you so. I acknowledge that on some occasions it might render you more agreeable as companions, but it would make you less amiable as women: an important distinction, which many of your sex are not aware of."

This desire of being always women, is the very consciousness that degrades the sex. Excepting with a lover, I must repeat with emphasis, a former observation—it would be well if they were only agreeable or rational companions. But in this respect his advice is even inconsistent with a passage which I mean to quote with the most marked approbation.

"The sentiment, that a woman may allow all innocent freedoms, provided her virtue is secure, is both grossly indelicate and dangerous, and has proved fatal to many of your sex." With this opinion I perfectly coincide. A man, or a woman, of any feeling must always wish to convince a beloved object that it is the caresses of the individual, not the sex, that is received and returned with pleasure; and, that the heart, rather than the senses, is moved. Without this natural delicacy, love becomes a selfish personal gratification that soon degrades the character.

I carry this sentiment still further. Affection, when love is out of the question, authorises many personal endearments, that naturally flowing from an innocent heart give life to the behaviour; but the personal intercourse of appetite, gallantry, or vanity, is despicable. When a man squeezes the hand of a pretty woman, handing her to a carriage, whom he has never seen before, she will consider such an impertinent freedom in the light of an insult, if she have any true delicacy, instead of being flattered by this unmeaning homage to beauty. These are the privileges of friendship, or the momentary homage which the heart pays to virtue, when it flashes suddenly on the notice—mere animal spirits have no claim to the kindnesses of affection.

Wishing to feed the affections with what is now the food of vanity, I would fain persuade my sex to act from simpler principles. Let them merit love, and they will obtain it, though they may never be told that: "The power of a fine woman over the hearts of men, of men of the finest parts, is even beyond what she conceives."

I have already noticed the narrow cautions with respect to duplicity, female softness, delicacy of constitution; for these are the changes which he rings round without ceasing, in a more decorous manner, it is true, than Rousseau; but it all comes home to the same point, and whoever is at the trouble to analyze these sentiments, will find the first principles not quite so delicate as the superstructure.

The subject of amusements is treated in too cursory a manner; but with the same spirit.

When I treat of friendship, love, and marriage, it will be found that we materially differ in opinion; I shall not then forestall what I have to observe on these important subjects; but confine my remarks to the general tenor of them, to that cautious family prudence, to those confined views of partial unenlightened affection, which exclude pleasure and improvement, by vainly wishing to ward off sorrow and error—and by thus guarding the heart and mind, destroy also all their energy. It is far better to be often deceived than never to trust; to be disappointed in love, than never to love; to lose a husband's fondness, than forfeit his esteem.

Happy would it be for the world, and for individuals, of course, if all this unavailing solicitude to attain worldly happiness, on a confined plan, were turned into an anxious desire to improve the understanding. "Wisdom is the principal thing: THEREFORE get wisdom; and with all thy gettings get understanding." "How long ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity, and hate knowledge?" Saith Wisdom to the daughters of men!

SECTION 5.4.

I do not mean to allude to all the writers who have written on the subject of female manners—it would in fact be only beating over the old ground, for they have, in general, written in the same strain; but attacking the boasted prerogative of man—the prerogative that may emphatically be called the iron sceptre of tyranny, the original sin of tyrants, I declare against all power built on prejudices, however hoary.

If the submission demanded be founded on justice—there is no appealing to a higher power—for God is justice itself. Let us then, as children of the same parent, if not bastardized by being the younger born, reason together, and learn to submit to the authority of reason when her voice is distinctly heard. But, if it be proved that this throne of prerogative only rests on a chaotic mass of prejudices, that have no inherent principle of order to keep them together, or on an elephant, tortoise, or even the mighty shoulders of a son of the earth, they may escape, who dare to brave the consequence without any breach of duty, without sinning against the order of things.

Whilst reason raises man above the brutal herd, and death is big with promises, they alone are subject to blind authority who have no reliance on their own strength. "They are free who will be free!"

The being who can govern itself, has nothing to fear in life; but if any thing is dearer than its own respect, the price must be paid to the last farthing. Virtue, like every thing valuable, must be loved for herself alone; or she will not take up her abode with us. She will not impart that peace, "which passeth understanding," when she is merely made the stilts of reputation and respected with pharisaical exactness, because "honesty is the best policy."

That the plan of life which enables us to carry some knowledge and virtue into another world, is the one best calculated to ensure content in this, cannot be denied; yet few people act according to this principle, though it be universally allowed that it admits not of dispute. Present pleasure, or present power, carry before it these sober convictions; and it is for the day, not for life, that man bargains with happiness. How few! how very few! have sufficient foresight or resolution, to endure a small evil at the moment, to avoid a greater hereafter.

Woman in particular, whose virtue is built on mutual prejudices, seldom attains to this greatness of mind; so that, becoming the slave of her own feelings, she is easily subjugated by those of others. Thus degraded, her reason, her misty reason! is employed rather to burnish than to snap her chains.

Indignantly have I heard women argue in the same track as men, and adopt the sentiments that brutalize them with all the pertinacity of ignorance.

I must illustrate my assertion by a few examples. Mrs. Piozzi, who often repeated by rote, what she did not understand, comes forward with Johnsonian periods.

"Seek not for happiness in singularity; and dread a refinement of wisdom as a deviation into folly." Thus she dogmatically addresses a new married man; and to elucidate this pompous exordium, she adds, "I said that the person of your lady would not grow more pleasing to you, but pray let her never suspect that it grows less so: that a woman will pardon an affront to her understanding much sooner than one to her person, is well known; nor will any of us contradict the assertion. All our attainments, all our arts, are employed to gain and keep the heart of man; and what mortification can exceed the disappointment, if the end be not obtained: There is no reproof however pointed, no punishment however severe, that a woman of spirit will not prefer to neglect; and if she can endure it without complaint, it only proves that she means to make herself amends by the attention of others for the slights of her husband!"

These are true masculine sentiments. "All our ARTS are employed to gain and keep the heart of man:"—and what is the inference?—if her person, and was there ever a person, though formed with Medicisan symmetry, that was not slighted? be neglected, she will make herself amends by endeavouring to please other men. Noble morality! But thus is the understanding of the whole sex affronted, and their virtue deprived of the common basis of virtue. A woman must know, that her person cannot be as pleasing to her husband as it was to her lover, and if she be offended with him for being a human creature, she may as well whine about the loss of his heart as about any other foolish thing. And this very want of discernment or unreasonable anger, proves that he could not change his fondness for her person into affection for her virtues or respect for her understanding.

Whilst women avow, and act up to such opinions, their understandings, at least, deserve the contempt and obloquy that men, WHO NEVER insult their persons, have pointedly levelled at the female mind. And it is the sentiments of these polite men, who do not wish to be encumbered with mind, that vain women thoughtlessly adopt. Yet they should know, that insulted reason alone can spread that SACRED reserve about the persons which renders human affections, for human affections have always some base alloy, as permanent as is consistent with the grand end of existence—the attainment of virtue.

The Baroness de Stael speaks the same language as the lady just cited, with more enthusiasm. Her eulogium on Rousseau was accidentally put into my hands, and her sentiments, the sentiments of too many of my sex, may serve as the text for a few comments. "Though Rousseau," she observes, "has endeavoured to prevent women from interfering in public affairs, and acting a brilliant part in the theatre of politics; yet, in speaking of them, how much has he done it to their satisfaction! If he wished to deprive them of some rights, foreign to their sex, how has he for ever restored to them all those to which it has a claim! And in attempting to diminish their influence over the deliberations of men, how sacredly has he established the empire they have over their happiness! In aiding them to descend from an usurped throne, he has firmly seated them upon that to which they were destined by nature; and though he be full of indignation against them when they endeavour to resemble men, yet when they come before him with all THE CHARMS WEAKNESSES, VIRTUES, and ERRORS, OF their sex, his respect for their PERSONS amounts almost to adoration." True!—For never was there a sensualist who paid more fervent adoration at the shrine of beauty. So devout, indeed, was his respect for the person, that excepting the virtue of chastity, for obvious reasons, he only wished to see it embellished by charms, weaknesses, and errors. He was afraid lest the austerity of reason should disturb the soft playfulness of love. The master wished to have a meretricious slave to fondle, entirely dependent on his reason and bounty; he did not want a companion, whom he should be compelled to esteem, or a friend to whom he could confide the care of his children's education, should death deprive them of their father, before he had fulfilled the sacred task. He denies woman reason, shuts her out from knowledge, and turns her aside from truth; yet his pardon is granted, because, "he admits the passion of love." It would require some ingenuity to show why women were to be under such an obligation to him for thus admitting love; when it is clear that he admits it only for the relaxation of men, and to perpetuate the species; but he talked with passion, and that powerful spell worked on the sensibility of a young encomiast. "What signifies it," pursues this rhapsodist, "to women, that his reason disputes with them the empire, when his heart is devotedly theirs." It is not empire—but equality, that they should contend for. Yet, if they only wished to lengthen out their sway, they should not entirely trust to their persons, for though beauty may gain a heart, it cannot keep it, even while the beauty is in full bloom, unless the mind lend, at least, some graces.

When women are once sufficiently enlightened to discover their real interest, on a grand scale, they will, I am persuaded, be very ready to resign all the prerogatives of love, that are not mutual, (speaking of them as lasting prerogatives,) for the calm satisfaction of friendship, and the tender confidence of habitual esteem. Before marriage they will not assume any insolent airs, nor afterward abjectly submit; but, endeavouring to act like reasonable creatures, in both situations, they will not be tumbled from a throne to a stool.

Madame Genlis has written several entertaining books for children; and her letters on Education afford many useful hints, that sensible parents will certainly avail themselves of; but her views are narrow, and her prejudices as unreasonable as strong.

I shall pass over her vehement argument in favour of the eternity of future punishments, because I blush to think that a human being should ever argue vehemently in such a cause, and only make a few remarks on her absurd manner of making the parental authority supplant reason. For every where does she inculcate not only BLIND submission to parents; but to the opinion of the world.

She tells a story of a young man engaged by his father's express desire to a girl of fortune. Before the marriage could take place she is deprived of her fortune, and thrown friendless on the world. The father practises the most infamous arts to separate his son from her, and when the son detects his villany, and, following the dictates of honour, marries the girl, nothing but misery ensues, because forsooth he married WITHOUT his father's consent. On what ground can religion or morality rest, when justice is thus set at defiance? In the same style she represents an accomplished young woman, as ready to marry any body that her MAMMA pleased to recommend; and, as actually marrying the young man of her own choice, without feeling any emotions of passion, because that a well educated girl had not time to be in love. Is it possible to have much respect for a system of education that thus insults reason and nature?

Many similar opinions occur in her writings, mixed with sentiments that do honour to her head and heart. Yet so much superstition is mixed with her religion, and so much worldly wisdom with her morality, that I should not let a young person read her works, unless I could afterwards converse on the subjects, and point out the contradictions.

Mrs. Chapone's Letters are written with such good sense, and unaffected humility, and contain so many useful observations, that I only mention them to pay the worthy writer this tribute of respect. I cannot, it is true, always coincide in opinion with her; but I always respect her.

The very word respect brings Mrs. Macaulay to my remembrance. The woman of the greatest abilities, undoubtedly, that this country has ever produced. And yet this woman has been suffered to die without sufficient respect being paid to her memory.

Posterity, however, will be more just; and remember that Catharine Macaulay was an example of intellectual acquirements supposed to be incompatible with the weakness of her sex. In her style of writing, indeed, no sex appears, for it is like the sense it conveys, strong and clear.

I will not call her's a masculine understanding, because I admit not of such an arrogant assumption of reason; but I contend that it was a sound one, and that her judgment, the matured fruit of profound thinking, was a proof that a woman can acquire judgment, in the full extent of the word. Possessing more penetration than sagacity, more understanding than fancy, she writes with sober energy, and argumentative closeness; yet sympathy and benevolence give an interest to her sentiments, and that vital heat to arguments, which forces the reader to weigh them.

When I first thought of writing these strictures I anticipated Mrs. Macaulay's approbation with a little of that sanguine ardour which it has been the business of my life to depress; but soon heard with the sickly qualm of disappointed hope, and the still seriousness of regret—that she was no more!

SECTION 5.5.

Taking a view of the different works which have been written on education, Lord Chesterfield's Letters must not be silently passed over. Not that I mean to analyze his unmanly, immoral system, or even to cull any of the useful shrewd remarks which occur in his frivolous correspondence—No, I only mean to make a few reflections on the avowed tendency of them—the art of acquiring an early knowledge of the world. An art, I will venture to assert, that preys secretly, like the worm in the bud, on the expanding powers, and turns to poison the generous juices which should mount with vigour in the youthful frame, inspiring warm affections and great resolves.

For every thing, saith the wise man, there is reason; and who would look for the fruits of autumn during the genial months of spring? But this is mere declamation, and I mean to reason with those worldly-wise instructors, who, instead of cultivating the judgment, instil prejudices, and render hard the heart that gradual experience would only have cooled. An early acquaintance with human infirmities; or, what is termed knowledge of the world, is the surest way, in my opinion, to contract the heart and damp the natural youthful ardour which produces not only great talents, but great virtues. For the vain attempt to bring forth the fruit of experience, before the sapling has thrown out its leaves, only exhausts its strength, and prevents its assuming a natural form; just as the form and strength of subsiding metals are injured when the attraction of cohesion is disturbed. Tell me, ye who have studied the human mind, is it not a strange way to fix principles by showing young people that they are seldom stable? And how can they be fortified by habits when they are proved to be fallacious by example? Why is the ardour of youth thus to be damped, and the luxuriancy of fancy cut to the quick? This dry caution may, it is true, guard a character from worldly mischances; but will infallibly preclude excellence in either virtue or knowledge. The stumbling-block thrown across every path by suspicion, will prevent any vigorous exertions of genius or benevolence, and life will be stripped of its most alluring charm long before its calm evening, when man should retire to contemplation for comfort and support.

A young man who has been bred up with domestic friends, and led to store his mind with as much speculative knowledge as can be acquired by reading and the natural reflections which youthful ebullitions of animal spirits and instinctive feelings inspire, will enter the world with warm and erroneous expectations. But this appears to be the course of nature; and in morals, as well as in works of taste, we should be observant of her sacred indications, and not presume to lead when we ought obsequiously to follow.

In the world few people act from principle; present feelings, and early habits, are the grand springs: but how would the former be deadened, and the latter rendered iron corroding fetters, if the world were shown to young people just as it is; when no knowledge of mankind or their own hearts, slowly obtained by experience rendered them forbearing? Their fellow creatures would not then be viewed as frail beings; like themselves, condemned to struggle with human infirmities, and sometimes displaying the light and sometimes the dark side of their character; extorting alternate feelings of love and disgust; but guarded against as beasts of prey, till every enlarged social feeling, in a word—humanity, was eradicated.

In life, on the contrary, as we gradually discover the imperfections of our nature, we discover virtues, and various circumstances attach us to our fellow creatures, when we mix with them, and view the same objects, that are never thought of in acquiring a hasty unnatural knowledge of the world. We see a folly swell into a vice, by almost imperceptible degrees, and pity while we blame; but, if the hideous monster burst suddenly on our sight, fear and disgust rendering us more severe than man ought to be, might lead us with blind zeal to usurp the character of omnipotence, and denounce damnation on our fellow mortals, forgetting that we cannot read the heart, and that we have seeds of the same vices lurking in our own.

I have already remarked, that we expect more from instruction, than mere instruction can produce: for, instead of preparing young people to encounter the evils of life with dignity, and to acquire wisdom and virtue by the exercise of their own faculties, precepts are heaped upon precepts, and blind obedience required, when conviction should be brought home to reason.

Suppose, for instance, that a young person in the first ardour of friendship deifies the beloved object—what harm can arise from this mistaken enthusiastic attachment? Perhaps it is necessary for virtue first to appear in a human form to impress youthful hearts; the ideal model, which a more matured and exalted mind looks up to, and shapes for itself, would elude their sight. He who loves not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God? asked the wisest of men.

It is natural for youth to adorn the first object of its affection with every good quality, and the emulation produced by ignorance, or, to speak with more propriety, by inexperience, brings forward the mind capable of forming such an affection, and when, in the lapse of time, perfection is found not to be within the reach of mortals, virtue, abstractly, is thought beautiful, and wisdom sublime. Admiration then gives place to friendship, properly so called, because it is cemented by esteem; and the being walks alone only dependent on heaven for that emulous panting after perfection which ever glows in a noble mind. But this knowledge a man must gain by the exertion of his own faculties; and this is surely the blessed fruit of disappointed hope! for He who delighteth to diffuse happiness and show mercy to the weak creatures, who are learning to know him, never implanted a good propensity to be a tormenting ignis fatuus.

Our trees are now allowed to spread with wild luxuriance, nor do we expect by force to combine the majestic marks of time with youthful graces; but wait patiently till they have struck deep their root, and braved many a storm. Is the mind then, which, in proportion to its dignity advances more slowly towards perfection, to be treated with less respect? To argue from analogy, every thing around us is in a progressive state; and when an unwelcome knowledge of life produces almost a satiety of life, and we discover by the natural course of things that all that is done under the sun is vanity, we are drawing near the awful close of the drama. The days of activity and hope are over, and the opportunities which the first stage of existence has afforded of advancing in the scale of intelligence, must soon be summed up. A knowledge at this period of the futility of life, or earlier, if obtained by experience, is very useful, because it is natural; but when a frail being is shown the follies and vices of man, that he may be taught prudently to guard against the common casualties of life by sacrificing his heart—surely it is not speaking harshly to call it the wisdom of this world, contrasted with the nobler fruit of piety and experience.

I will venture a paradox, and deliver my opinion without reserve; if men were only born to form a circle of life and death, it would be wise to take every step that foresight could suggest to render life happy. Moderation in every pursuit would then be supreme wisdom; and the prudent voluptuary might enjoy a degree of content, though he neither cultivated his understanding nor kept his heart pure. Prudence, supposing we were mortal, would be true wisdom, or, to be more explicit, would procure the greatest portion of happiness, considering the whole of life; but knowledge beyond the conveniences of life would be a curse.

Why should we injure our health by close study? The exalted pleasure which intellectual pursuits afford would scarcely be equivalent to the hours of languor that follow; especially, if it be necessary to take into the reckoning the doubts and disappointments that cloud our researches. Vanity and vexation close every inquiry: for the cause which we particularly wished to discover flies like the horizon before us as we advance. The ignorant, on the contrary, resemble children, and suppose, that if they could walk straight forward they should at last arrive where the earth and clouds meet. Yet, disappointed as we are in our researches, the mind gains strength by the exercise, sufficient, perhaps, to comprehend the answers which, in another step of existence, it may receive to the anxious questions it asked, when the understanding with feeble wing was fluttering round the visible effects to dive into the hidden cause.

The passions also, the winds of life, would be useless, if not injurious, did the substance which composes our thinking being, after we have thought in vain, only become the support of vegetable life, and invigorate a cabbage, or blush in a rose. The appetites would answer every earthly purpose, and produce more moderate and permanent happiness. But the powers of the soul that are of little use here, and, probably, disturb our animal enjoyments, even while conscious dignity makes us glory in possessing them, prove that life is merely an education, a state of infancy, of which the only hopes worth cherishing should not be sacrificed. I mean, therefore to infer, that we ought to have a precise idea of what we wish to attain by education, for the immortality of the soul is contradicted by the actions of many people, who firmly profess the belief.

If you mean to secure ease and prosperity on earth as the first consideration, and leave futurity to provide for itself, you act prudently in giving your child an early insight into the weaknesses of his nature. You may not, it is true, make an Inkle of him; but do not imagine that he will stick to more than the letter of the law, who has very early imbibed a mean opinion of human nature; nor will he think it necessary to rise much above the common standard. He may avoid gross vices, because honesty is the best policy; but he will never aim at attaining great virtues. The example of writers and artists will illustrate this remark.

I must therefore venture to doubt, whether what has been thought an axiom in morals, may not have been a dogmatical assertion made by men who have coolly seen mankind through the medium of books, and say, in direct contradiction to them, that the regulation of the passions is not always wisdom. On the contrary, it should seem, that one reason why men have superiour judgment and more fortitude than women, is undoubtedly this, that they give a freer scope to the grand passions, and by more frequently going astray, enlarge their minds. If then by the exercise of their own reason, they fix on some stable principle, they have probably to thank the force of their passions, nourished by FALSE views of life, and permitted to overleap the boundary that secures content. But if, in the dawn of life, we could soberly survey the scenes before us as in perspective, and see every thing in its true colours, how could the passions gain sufficient strength to unfold the faculties?

Let me now, as from an eminence, survey the world stripped of all its false delusive charms. The clear atmosphere enables me to see each object in its true point of view, while my heart is still. I am calm as the prospect in a morning when the mists, slowly dispersing, silently unveil the beauties of nature, refreshed by rest.

In what light will the world now appear? I rub my eyes and think, perchance, that I am just awaking from a lively dream.

I see the sons and daughters of men pursuing shadows, and anxiously wasting their powers to feed passions which have no adequate object—if the very excess of these blind impulses pampered by that lying, yet constantly-trusted guide, the imagination, did not, by preparing them for some other state, render short sighted mortals wiser without their own concurrence; or, what comes to the same thing, when they were pursuing some imaginary present good.

After viewing objects in this light, it would not be very fanciful to imagine, that this world was a stage on which a pantomime is daily performed for the amusement of superiour beings. How would they be diverted to see the ambitious man consuming himself by running after a phantom, and, pursuing the bubble fame in "the cannon's mouth" that was to blow him to nothing: for when consciousness is lost, it matters not whether we mount in a whirlwind or descend in rain. And should they compassionately invigorate his sight, and show him the thorny path which led to eminence, that like a quicksand sinks as he ascends, disappointing his hopes when almost within his grasp, would he not leave to others the honour of amusing them, and labour to secure the present moment, though from the constitution of his nature he would not find it very easy to catch the flying stream? Such slaves are we to hope and fear!

But, vain as the ambitious man's pursuit would be, he is often striving for something more substantial than fame—that indeed would be the veriest meteor, the wildest fire that could lure a man to ruin. What! renounce the most trifling gratification to be applauded when he should be no more! Wherefore this struggle, whether man is mortal or immortal, if that noble passion did not really raise the being above his fellows?

And love! What diverting scenes would it produce—Pantaloon's tricks must yield to more egregious folly. To see a mortal adorn an object with imaginary charms, and then fall down and worship the idol which he had himself set up—how ridiculous! But what serious consequences ensue to rob man of that portion of happiness, which the Deity by calling him into existence has (or, on what can his attributes rest?) indubitably promised; would not all the purposes of life have been much better fulfilled if he had only felt what has been termed physical love? And, would not the sight of the object, not seen through the medium of the imagination, soon reduce the passion to an appetite, if reflection, the noble distinction of man, did not give it force, and make it an instrument to raise him above this earthy dross, by teaching him to love the centre of all perfection! whose wisdom appears clearer and clearer in the works of nature, in proportion as reason is illuminated and exalted by contemplation, and by acquiring that love of order which the struggles of passion produce?

The habit of reflection, and the knowledge attained by fostering any passion, might be shown to be equally useful though the object be proved equally fallacious; for they would all appear in the same light, if they were not magnified by the governing passion implanted in us by the Author of all good, to call forth and strengthen the faculties of each individual, and enable it to attain all the experience that an infant can obtain, who does certain things, it cannot tell why.

I descend from my height, and mixing with my fellow creatures, feel myself hurried along the common stream; ambition, love, hope, and fear, exert their wonted power, though we be convinced by reason that their present and most attractive promises are only lying dreams; but had the cold hand of circumspection damped each generous feeling before it had left any permanent character, or fixed some habit, what could be expected, but selfish prudence and reason just rising above instinct? Who that has read Dean Swift's disgusting description of the Yahoos, and insipid one of Houyhnhnm with a philosophical eye, can avoid seeing the futility of degrading the passions, or making man rest in contentment?

The youth should ACT; for had he the experience of a grey head, he would be fitter for death than life, though his virtues, rather residing in his head than his heart could produce nothing great, and his understanding prepared for this world, would not, by its noble flights, prove that it had a title to a better.

Besides, it is not possible to give a young person a just view of life; he must have struggled with his own passions before he can estimate the force of the temptation which betrayed his brother into vice. Those who are entering life, and those who are departing, see the world from such very different points of view, that they can seldom think alike, unless the unfledged reason of the former never attempted a solitary flight.

When we hear of some daring crime—it comes full upon us in the deepest shade of turpitude, and raises indignation; but the eye that gradually saw the darkness thicken, must observe it with more compassionate forbearance. The world cannot be seen by an unmoved spectator, we must mix in the throng, and feel as men feel before we can judge of their feelings. If we mean, in short, to live in the world to grow wiser and better, and not merely to enjoy the good things of life, we must attain a knowledge of others at the same time that we become acquainted with ourselves— knowledge acquired any other way only hardens the heart and perplexes the understanding.

I may be told, that the knowledge thus acquired, is sometimes purchased at too dear a rate. I can only answer, that I very much doubt whether any knowledge can be attained without labour and sorrow; and those who wish to spare their children both, should not complain if they are neither wise nor virtuous. They only aimed at making them prudent; and prudence, early in life, is but the cautious craft of ignorant self-love. I have observed, that young people, to whose education particular attention has been paid, have, in general, been very superficial and conceited, and far from pleasing in any respect, because they had neither the unsuspecting warmth of youth, nor the cool depth of age. I cannot help imputing this unnatural appearance principally to that hasty premature instruction, which leads them presumptuously to repeat all the crude notions they have taken upon trust, so that the careful education which they received, makes them all their lives the slaves of prejudices.

Mental as well as bodily exertion is, at first, irksome; so much so, that the many would fain let others both work and think for them. An observation which I have often made will illustrate my meaning. When in a circle of strangers, or acquaintances, a person of moderate abilities, asserts an opinion with heat, I will venture to affirm, for I have traced this fact home, very often, that it is a prejudice. These echoes have a high respect for the understanding of some relation or friend, and without fully comprehending the opinions, which they are so eager to retail, they maintain them with a degree of obstinacy, that would surprise even the person who concocted them.

I know that a kind of fashion now prevails of respecting prejudices; and when any one dares to face them, though actuated by humanity and armed by reason, he is superciliously asked, whether his ancestors were fools. No, I should reply; opinions, at first, of every description, were all, probably, considered, and therefore were founded on some reason; yet not unfrequently, of course, it was rather a local expedient than a fundamental principle, that would be reasonable at all times. But, moss-covered opinions assume the disproportioned form of prejudices, when they are indolently adopted only because age has given them a venerable aspect, though the reason on which they were built ceases to be a reason, or cannot be traced. Why are we to love prejudices, merely because they are prejudices? A prejudice is a fond obstinate persuasion, for which we can give no reason; for the moment a reason can be given for an opinion, it ceases to be a prejudice, though it may be an error in judgment: and are we then advised to cherish opinions only to set reason at defiance? This mode of arguing, if arguing it may be called, reminds me of what is vulgarly termed a woman's reason. For women sometimes declare that they love, or believe certain things, BECAUSE they love, or believe them.

It is impossible to converse with people to any purpose, who, in this style, only use affirmatives and negatives. Before you can bring them to a point, to start fairly from, you must go back to the simple principles that were antecedent to the prejudices broached by power; and it is ten to one but you are stopped by the philosophical assertion, that certain principles are as practically false as they are abstractly true. Nay, it may be inferred, that reason has whispered some doubts, for it generally happens that people assert their opinions with the greatest heat when they begin to waver; striving to drive out their own doubts by convincing their opponent, they grow angry when those gnawing doubts are thrown back to prey on themselves.

The fact is, that men expect from education, what education cannot give. A sagacious parent or tutor may strengthen the body and sharpen the instruments by which the child is to gather knowledge; but the honey must be the reward of the individual's own industry. It is almost as absurd to attempt to make a youth wise by the experience of another, as to expect the body to grow strong by the exercise which is only talked of, or seen.

Many of those children whose conduct has been most narrowly watched, become the weakest men, because their instructors only instill certain notions into their minds, that have no other foundation than their authority; and if they are loved or respected, the mind is cramped in its exertions and wavering in its advances. The business of education in this case, is only to conduct the shooting tendrils to a proper pole; yet after laying precept upon precept, without allowing a child to acquire judgment itself, parents expect them to act in the same manner by this borrowed fallacious light, as if they had illuminated it themselves; and be, when they enter life, what their parents are at the close. They do not consider that the tree, and even the human body, does not strengthen its fibres till it has reached its full growth.

There appears to be something analogous in the mind. The senses and the imagination give a form to the character, during childhood and youth; and the understanding as life advances, gives firmness to the first fair purposes of sensibility—till virtue, arising rather from the clear conviction of reason than the impulse of the heart, morality is made to rest on a rock against which the storms of passion vainly beat.

I hope I shall not be misunderstood when I say, that religion will not have this condensing energy, unless it be founded on reason. If it be merely the refuge of weakness or wild fanaticism, and not a governing principle of conduct, drawn from self-knowledge, and a rational opinion respecting the attributes of God, what can it be expected to produce? The religion which consists in warming the affections, and exalting the imagination, is only the poetical part, and may afford the individual pleasure without rendering it a more moral being. It may be a substitute for worldly pursuits; yet narrow instead of enlarging the heart: but virtue must be loved as in itself sublime and excellent, and not for the advantages it procures or the evils it averts, if any great degree of excellence be expected. Men will not become moral when they only build airy castles in a future world to compensate for the disappointments which they meet with in this; if they turn their thoughts from relative duties to religious reveries.

Most prospects in life are marred by the shuffling worldly wisdom of men, who, forgetting that they cannot serve God and mammon, endeavour to blend contradictory things. If you wish to make your son rich, pursue one course —if you are only anxious to make him virtuous, you must take another; but do not imagine that you can bound from one road to the other without losing your way.

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

CHAPTER 6. THE EFFECT WHICH AN EARLY ASSOCIATION OF IDEAS HAS UPON THE CHARACTER.

Educated in the enervating style recommended by the writers on whom I have been animadverting; and not having a chance, from their subordinate state in society, to recover their lost ground, is it surprising that women every where appear a defect in nature? Is it surprising, when we consider what a determinate effect an early association of ideas has on the character, that they neglect their understandings, and turn all their attention to their persons?

The great advantages which naturally result from storing the mind with knowledge, are obvious from the following considerations. The association of our ideas is either habitual or instantaneous; and the latter mode seems rather to depend on the original temperature of the mind than on the will. When the ideas, and matters of fact, are once taken in, they lie by for use, till some fortuitous circumstance makes the information dart into the mind with illustrative force, that has been received at very different periods of our lives. Like the lightning's flash are many recollections; one idea assimilating and explaining another, with astonishing rapidity. I do not now allude to that quick perception of truth, which is so intuitive that it baffles research, and makes us at a loss to determine whether it is reminiscence or ratiocination, lost sight of in its celerity, that opens the dark cloud. Over those instantaneous associations we have little power; for when the mind is once enlarged by excursive flights, or profound reflection, the raw materials, will, in some degree, arrange themselves. The understanding, it is true, may keep us from going out of drawing when we group our thoughts, or transcribe from the imagination the warm sketches of fancy; but the animal spirits, the individual character give the colouring. Over this subtile electric fluid, how little power do we possess, and over it how little power can reason obtain! These fine intractable spirits appear to be the essence of genius, and beaming in its eagle eye, produce in the most eminent degree the happy energy of associating thoughts that surprise, delight, and instruct. These are the glowing minds that concentrate pictures for their fellow-creatures; forcing them to view with interest the objects reflected from the impassioned imagination, which they passed over in nature.

I must be allowed to explain myself. The generality of people cannot see or feel poetically, they want fancy, and therefore fly from solitude in search of sensible objects; but when an author lends them his eyes, they can see as he saw, and be amused by images they could not select, though lying before them.

Education thus only supplies the man of genius with knowledge to give variety and contrast to his associations; but there is an habitual association of ideas, that grows "with our growth," which has a great effect on the moral character of mankind; and by which a turn is given to the mind, that commonly remains throughout life. So ductile is the understanding, and yet so stubborn, that the associations which depend on adventitious circumstances, during the period that the body takes to arrive at maturity, can seldom be disentangled by reason. One idea calls up another, its old associate, and memory, faithful to the first impressions, particularly when the intellectual powers are not employed to cool our sensations, retraces them with mechanical exactness.

This habitual slavery, to first impressions, has a more baneful effect on the female than the male character, because business and other dry employments of the understanding, tend to deaden the feelings and break associations that do violence to reason. But females, who are made women of when they are mere children, and brought back to childhood when they ought to leave the go-cart forever, have not sufficient strength of mind to efface the superinductions of art that have smothered nature.

Every thing that they see or hear serves to fix impressions, call forth emotions, and associate ideas, that give a sexual character to the mind. False notions of beauty and delicacy stop the growth of their limbs and produce a sickly soreness, rather than delicacy of organs; and thus weakened by being employed in unfolding instead of examining the first associations, forced on them by every surrounding object, how can they attain the vigour necessary to enable them to throw off their factitious character?—where find strength to recur to reason and rise superior to a system of oppression, that blasts the fair promises of spring? This cruel association of ideas, which every thing conspires to twist into all their habits of thinking, or, to speak with more precision, of feeling, receives new force when they begin to act a little for themselves; for they then perceive, that it is only through their address to excite emotions in men, that pleasure and power are to be obtained. Besides, all the books professedly written for their instruction, which make the first impression on their minds, all inculcate the same opinions. Educated in worse than Egyptian bondage, it is unreasonable, as well as cruel, to upbraid them with faults that can scarcely be avoided, unless a degree of native vigour be supposed, that falls to the lot of very few amongst mankind.

For instance, the severest sarcasms have been levelled against the sex, and they have been ridiculed for repeating "a set of phrases learnt by rote," when nothing could be more natural, considering the education they receive, and that their "highest praise is to obey, unargued"—the will of man. If they are not allowed to have reason sufficient to govern their own conduct—why, all they learn—must be learned by rote! And when all their ingenuity is called forth to adjust their dress, "a passion for a scarlet coat," is so natural, that it never surprised me; and, allowing Pope's summary of their character to be just, "that every woman is at heart a rake," why should they be bitterly censured for seeking a congenial mind, and preferring a rake to a man of sense?

Rakes know how to work on their sensibility, whilst the modest merit of reasonable men has, of course, less effect on their feelings, and they cannot reach the heart by the way of the understanding, because they have few sentiments in common.

It seems a little absurd to expect women to be more reasonable than men in their LIKINGS, and still to deny them the uncontroled use of reason. When do men FALL IN LOVE with sense? When do they, with their superior powers and advantages, turn from the person to the mind? And how can they then expect women, who are only taught to observe behaviour, and acquire manners rather than morals, to despise what they have been all their lives labouring to attain? Where are they suddenly to find judgment enough to weigh patiently the sense of an awkward virtuous man, when his manners, of which they are made critical judges, are rebuffing, and his conversation cold and dull, because it does not consist of pretty repartees, or well-turned compliments? In order to admire or esteem any thing for a continuance, we must, at least, have our curiosity excited by knowing, in some degree, what we admire; for we are unable to estimate the value of qualities and virtues above our comprehension. Such a respect, when it is felt, may be very sublime; and the confused consciousness of humility may render the dependent creature an interesting object, in some points of view; but human love must have grosser ingredients; and the person very naturally will come in for its share—and, an ample share it mostly has!

Love is, in a great degree, an arbitrary passion, and will reign like some other stalking mischiefs, by its own authority, without deigning to reason; and it may also be easily distinguished from esteem, the foundation of friendship, because it is often excited by evanescent beauties and graces, though to give an energy to the sentiment something more solid must deepen their impression and set the imagination to work, to make the most fair— the first good.

Common passions are excited by common qualities. Men look for beauty and the simper of good humoured docility: women are captivated by easy manners: a gentleman-like man seldom fails to please them, and their thirsty ears eagerly drink the insinuating nothings of politeness, whilst they turn from the unintelligible sounds of the charmer—reason, charm he never so wisely. With respect to superficial accomplishments, the rake certainly has the advantage; and of these, females can form an opinion, for it is their own ground. Rendered gay and giddy by the whole tenor of their lives, the very aspect of wisdom, or the severe graces of virtue must have a lugubrious appearance to them; and produce a kind of restraint from which they and love, sportive child, naturally revolt. Without taste, excepting of the lighter kind, for taste is the offspring of judgment, how can they discover, that true beauty and grace must arise from the play of the mind? and how can they be expected to relish in a lover what they do not, or very imperfectly, possess themselves? The sympathy that unites hearts, and invites to confidence, in them is so very faint, that it cannot take fire, and thus mount to passion. No, I repeat it, the love cherished by such minds, must have grosser fuel!

The inference is obvious; till women are led to exercise their understandings, they should not be satirized for their attachment to rakes; nor even for being rakes at heart, when it appears to be the inevitable consequence of their education. They who live to please must find their enjoyments, their happiness, in pleasure! It is a trite, yet true remark, that we never do any thing well, unless we love it for its own sake.

Supposing, however, for a moment, that women were, in some future revolution of time, to become, what I sincerely wish them to be, even love would acquire more serious dignity, and be purified in its own fires; and virtue giving true delicacy to their affections, they would turn with disgust from a rake. Reasoning then, as well as feeling, the only province of woman, at present, they might easily guard against exterior graces, and quickly learn to despise the sensibility that had been excited and hackneyed in the ways of women, whose trade was vice; and allurement's wanton airs. They would recollect that the flame, (one must use appropriate expressions,) which they wished to light up, had been exhausted by lust, and that the sated appetite, losing all relish for pure and simple pleasures, could only be roused by licentious arts of variety. What satisfaction could a woman of delicacy promise herself in a union with such a man, when the very artlessness of her affection might appear insipid? Thus does Dryden describe the situation:

"Where love is duty on the female side,

On theirs mere sensual gust, and sought with surly pride."

But one grand truth women have yet to learn, though much it imports them to act accordingly. In the choice of a husband they should not be led astray by the qualities of a lover—for a lover the husband, even supposing him to be wise and virtuous, cannot long remain.

Were women more rationally educated, could they take a more comprehensive view of things, they would be contented to love but once in their lives; and after marriage calmly let passion subside into friendship—into that tender intimacy, which is the best refuge from care; yet is built on such pure, still affections, that idle jealousies would not be allowed to disturb the discharge of the sober duties of life, nor to engross the thoughts that ought to be otherwise employed. This is a state in which many men live; but few, very few women. And the difference may easily be accounted for, without recurring to a sexual character. Men, for whom we are told women are made, have too much occupied the thoughts of women; and this association has so entangled love, with all their motives of action; and, to harp a little on an old string, having been solely employed either to prepare themselves to excite love, or actually putting their lessons in practice, they cannot live without love. But, when a sense of duty, or fear of shame, obliges them to restrain this pampered desire of pleasing beyond certain lengths, too far for delicacy, it is true, though far from criminality, they obstinately determine to love, I speak of their passion, their husbands to the end of the chapter—and then acting the part which they foolishly exacted from their lovers, they become abject wooers, and fond slaves.

Men of wit and fancy are often rakes; and fancy is the food of love. Such men will inspire passion. Half the sex, in its present infantine state, would pine for a Lovelace; a man so witty, so graceful, and so valiant; and can they DESERVE blame for acting according to principles so constantly inculcated? They want a lover and protector: and behold him kneeling before them—bravery prostrate to beauty! The virtues of a husband are thus thrown by love into the background, and gay hopes, or lively emotions, banish reflection till the day of reckoning comes; and come it surely will, to turn the sprightly lover into a surly suspicious tyrant, who contemptuously insults the very weakness he fostered. Or, supposing the rake reformed, he cannot quickly get rid of old habits. When a man of abilities is first carried away by his passions, it is necessary that sentiment and taste varnish the enormities of vice, and give a zest to brutal indulgences: but when the gloss of novelty is worn off, and pleasure palls upon the sense, lasciviousness becomes barefaced, and enjoyment only the desperate effort of weakness flying from reflection as from a legion of devils. Oh! virtue, thou art not an empty name! All that life can give— thou givest!

If much comfort cannot be expected from the friendship of a reformed rake of superior abilities, what is the consequence when he lacketh sense, as well as principles? Verily misery in its most hideous shape. When the habits of weak people are consolidated by time, a reformation is barely possible; and actually makes the beings miserable who have not sufficient mind to be amused by innocent pleasure; like the tradesman who retires from the hurry of business, nature presents to them only a universal blank; and the restless thoughts prey on the damped spirits. Their reformation as well as his retirement actually makes them wretched, because it deprives them of all employment, by quenching the hopes and fears that set in motion their sluggish minds.

If such be the force of habit; if such be the bondage of folly, how carefully ought we to guard the mind from storing up vicious associations; and equally careful should we be to cultivate the understanding, to save the poor wight from the weak dependent state of even harmless ignorance. For it is the right use of reason alone which makes us independent of every thing—excepting the unclouded Reason—"Whose service is perfect freedom."

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

CHAPTER 7. MODESTY COMPREHENSIVELY CONSIDERED AND NOT AS A SEXUAL VIRTUE.

Modesty! Sacred offspring of sensibility and reason! true delicacy of mind! may I unblamed presume to investigate thy nature, and trace to its covert the mild charm, that mellowing each harsh feature of a character, renders what would otherwise only inspire cold admiration—lovely! Thou that smoothest the wrinkles of wisdom, and softenest the tone of the more sublime virtues till they all melt into humanity! thou that spreadest the ethereal cloud that surrounding love heightens every beauty, it half shades, breathing those coy sweets that steal into the heart, and charm the senses—modulate for me the language of persuasive reason, till I rouse my sex from the flowery bed, on which they supinely sleep life away!

In speaking of the association of our ideas, I have noticed two distinct modes; and in defining modesty, it appears to me equally proper to discriminate that purity of mind, which is the effect of chastity, from a simplicity of character that leads us to form a just opinion of ourselves, equally distant from vanity or presumption, though by no means incompatible with a lofty consciousness of our own dignity. Modesty in the latter signification of the term, is that soberness of mind which teaches a man not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think, and should be distinguished from humility, because humility is a kind of self-abasement. A modest man often conceives a great plan, and tenaciously adheres to it, conscious of his own strength, till success gives it a sanction that determines its character. Milton was not arrogant when he suffered a suggestion of judgment to escape him that proved a prophesy; nor was General Washington when he accepted of the command of the American forces. The latter has always been characterized as a modest man; but had he been merely humble, he would probably have shrunk back irresolute, afraid of trusting to himself the direction of an enterprise on which so much depended.

A modest man is steady, an humble man timid, and a vain one presumptuous; this is the judgment, which the observation of many characters, has led me to form. Jesus Christ was modest, Moses was humble, and Peter vain.

Thus discriminating modesty from humility in one case, I do not mean to confound it with bashfulness in the other. Bashfulness, in fact, is so distinct from modesty, that the most bashful lass, or raw country lout, often becomes the most impudent; for their bashfulness being merely the instinctive timidity of ignorance, custom soon changes it into assurance.From tent to tent she spreads her flame;For custom conquers fear and shame.")">

The shameless behaviour of the prostitutes who infest the streets of London, raising alternate emotions of pity and disgust, may serve to illustrate this remark. They trample on virgin bashfulness with a sort of bravado, and glorying in their shame, become more audaciously lewd than men, however depraved, to whom the sexual quality has not been gratuitously granted, ever appear to be. But these poor ignorant wretches never had any modesty to lose, when they consigned themselves to infamy; for modesty is a virtue not a quality. No, they were only bashful, shame-faced innocents; and losing their innocence, their shame-facedness was rudely brushed off; a virtue would have left some vestiges in the mind, had it been sacrificed to passion, to make us respect the grand ruin.

Purity of mind, or that genuine delicacy, which is the only virtuous support of chastity, is near a-kin to that refinement of humanity, which never resides in any but cultivated minds. It is something nobler than innocence; it is the delicacy of reflection, and not the coyness of ignorance. The reserve of reason, which like habitual cleanliness, is seldom seen in any great degree, unless the soul is active, may easily be distinguished from rustic shyness or wanton skittishness; and so far from being incompatible with knowledge, it is its fairest fruit. What a gross idea of modesty had the writer of the following remark! "The lady who asked the question whether women may be instructed in the modern system of botany, consistently with female delicacy?" was accused of ridiculous prudery: nevertheless, if she had proposed the question to me, I should certainly have answered—They cannot." Thus is the fair book of knowledge to be shut with an everlasting seal! On reading similar passages I have reverentially lifted up my eyes and heart to Him who liveth for ever and ever, and said, O my Father, hast Thou by the very constitution of her nature forbid Thy child to seek Thee in the fair forms of truth? And, can her soul be sullied by the knowledge that awfully calls her to Thee?

I have then philosophically pursued these reflections till I inferred, that those women who have most improved their reason must have the most modesty —though a dignified sedateness of deportment may have succeeded the playful, bewitching bashfulness of youth.

And thus have I argued. To render chastity the virtue from which unsophisticated modesty will naturally flow, the attention should be called away from employments, which only exercise the sensibility; and the heart made to beat time to humanity, rather than to throb with love. The woman who has dedicated a considerable portion of her time to pursuits purely intellectual, and whose affections have been exercised by humane plans of usefulness, must have more purity of mind, as a natural consequence, than the ignorant beings whose time and thoughts have been occupied by gay pleasures or schemes to conquer hearts. The regulation of the behaviour is not modesty, though those who study rules of decorum, are, in general termed modest women. Make the heart clean, let it expand and feel for all that is human, instead of being narrowed by selfish passions; and let the mind frequently contemplate subjects that exercise the understanding, without heating the imagination, and artless modesty will give the finishing touches to the picture.

She who can discern the dawn of immortality, in the streaks that shoot athwart the misty night of ignorance, promising a clearer day, will respect, as a sacred temple, the body that enshrines such an improvable soul. True love, likewise, spreads this kind of mysterious sanctity round the beloved object, making the lover most modest when in her presence. So reserved is affection, that, receiving or returning personal endearments, it wishes, not only to shun the human eye, as a kind of profanation; but to diffuse an encircling cloudy obscurity to shut out even the saucy sparkling sunbeams. Yet, that affection does not deserve the epithet of chaste which does not receive a sublime gloom of tender melancholy, that allows the mind for a moment to stand still and enjoy the present satisfaction, when a consciousness of the Divine presence is felt—for this must ever be the food of joy!

As I have always been fond of tracing to its source in nature any prevailing custom, I have frequently thought that it was a sentiment of affection for whatever had touched the person of an absent or lost friend, which gave birth to that respect for relics, so much abused by selfish priests. Devotion, or love, may be allowed to hallow the garments as well as the person; for the lover must want fancy, who has not a sort of sacred respect for the glove or slipper of his mistress. He could not confound them with vulgar things of the same kind.

This fine sentiment, perhaps, would not bear to be analyzed by the experimental philosopher—but of such stuff is human rapture made up!— A shadowy phantom glides before us, obscuring every other object; yet when the soft cloud is grasped, the form melts into common air, leaving a solitary void, or sweet perfume, stolen from the violet, that memory long holds dear. But, I have tripped unawares on fairy ground, feeling the balmy gale of spring stealing on me, though November frowns.

As a sex, women are more chaste than men, and as modesty is the effect of chastity, they may deserve to have this virtue ascribed to them in rather an appropriated sense; yet, I must be allowed to add an hesitating if:— for I doubt, whether chastity will produce modesty, though it may propriety of conduct, when it is merely a respect for the opinion of the world, and when coquetry and the lovelorn tales of novelists employ the thoughts. Nay, from experience, and reason, I should be lead to expect to meet with more modesty amongst men than women, simply because men exercise their understandings more than women.

But, with respect to propriety of behaviour, excepting one class of females, women have evidently the advantage. What can be more disgusting than that impudent dross of gallantry, thought so manly, which makes many men stare insultingly at every female they meet? Is this respect for the sex? This loose behaviour shows such habitual depravity, such weakness of mind, that it is vain to expect much public or private virtue, till both men and women grow more modest—till men, curbing a sensual fondness for the sex, or an affectation of manly assurance, more properly speaking, impudence, treat each other with respect—unless appetite or passion gives the tone, peculiar to it, to their behaviour. I mean even personal respect—the modest respect of humanity, and fellow-feeling; not the libidinous mockery of gallantry, nor the insolent condescension of protectorship.

To carry the observation still further, modesty must heartily disclaim, and refuse to dwell with that debauchery of mind, which leads a man coolly to bring forward, without a blush, indecent allusions, or obscene witticisms, in the presence of a fellow creature; women are now out of the question, for then it is brutality. Respect for man, as man is the foundation of every noble sentiment. How much more modest is the libertine who obeys the call of appetite or fancy, than the lewd joker who sets the table in a roar.

This is one of the many instances in which the sexual distinction respecting modesty has proved fatal to virtue and happiness. It is, however, carried still further, and woman, weak woman! made by her education the slave of sensibility, is required, on the most trying occasions, to resist that sensibility. "Can any thing," says Knox, be more absurd than keeping women in a state of ignorance, and yet so vehemently to insist on their resisting temptation? Thus when virtue or honour make it proper to check a passion, the burden is thrown on the weaker shoulders, contrary to reason and true modesty, which, at least, should render the self-denial mutual, to say nothing of the generosity of bravery, supposed to be a manly virtue.

In the same strain runs Rousseau's and Dr. Gregory's advice respecting modesty, strangely miscalled! for they both desire a wife to leave it in doubt, whether sensibility or weakness led her to her husband's arms. The woman is immodest who can let the shadow of such a doubt remain on her husband's mind a moment.

But to state the subject in a different light. The want of modesty, which I principally deplore as subversive of morality, arises from the state of warfare so strenuously supported by voluptuous men as the very essence of modesty, though, in fact, its bane; because it is a refinement on sensual desire, that men fall into who have not sufficient virtue to relish the innocent pleasures of love. A man of delicacy carries his notions of modesty still further, for neither weakness nor sensibility will gratify him—he looks for affection.

Again; men boast of their triumphs over women, what do they boast of? Truly the creature of sensibility was surprised by her sensibility into folly—into vice; and the dreadful reckoning falls heavily on her own weak head, when reason wakes. For where art thou to find comfort, forlorn and disconsolate one? He who ought to have directed thy reason, and supported thy weakness, has betrayed thee! In a dream of passion thou consentedst to wander through flowery lawns, and heedlessly stepping over the precipice to which thy guide, instead of guarding, lured thee, thou startest from thy dream only to face a sneering, frowning world, and to find thyself alone in a waste, for he that triumphed in thy weakness is now pursuing new conquests; but for thee—there is no redemption on this side the grave! And what resource hast thou in an enervated mind to raise a sinking heart?

But, if the sexes be really to live in a state of warfare, if nature has pointed it out, let men act nobly, or let pride whisper to them, that the victory is mean when they merely vanquish sensibility. The real conquest is that over affection not taken by surprise—when, like Heloisa, a woman gives up all the world, deliberately, for love. I do not now consider the wisdom or virtue of such a sacrifice, I only contend that it was a sacrifice to affection, and not merely to sensibility, though she had her share. And I must be allowed to call her a modest woman, before I dismiss this part of the subject, by saying, that till men are more chaste, women will be immodest. Where, indeed, could modest women find husbands from whom they would not continually turn with disgust? Modesty must be equally cultivated by both sexes, or it will ever remain a sickly hot-house plant, whilst the affectation of it, the fig leaf borrowed by wantonness, may give a zest to voluptuous enjoyments.)

Men will probably still insist that woman ought to have more modesty than man; but it is not dispassionate reasoners who will most earnestly oppose my opinion. No, they are the men of fancy, the favourites of the sex, who outwardly respect, and inwardly despise the weak creatures whom they thus sport with. They cannot submit to resign the highest sensual gratification, nor even to relish the epicurism of virtue—self-denial.

To take another view of the subject, confining my remarks to women.

The ridiculous falsities which are told to children, from mistaken notions of modesty, tend very early to inflame their imaginations and set their little minds to work, respecting subjects, which nature never intended they should think of, till the body arrived at some degree of maturity; then the passions naturally begin to take place of the senses, as instruments to unfold the understanding, and form the moral character.

In nurseries, and boarding schools, I fear, girls are first spoiled; particularly in the latter. A number of girls sleep in the same room, and wash together. And, though I should be sorry to contaminate an innocent creature's mind by instilling false delicacy, or those indecent prudish notions, which early cautions respecting the other sex naturally engender, I should be very anxious to prevent their acquiring indelicate, or immodest habits; and as many girls have learned very indelicate tricks, from ignorant servants, the mixing them thus indiscriminately together, is very improper.

To say the truth, women are, in general, too familiar with each other, which leads to that gross degree of familiarity that so frequently renders the marriage state unhappy. Why in the name of decency are sisters, female intimates, or ladies and their waiting women, to be so grossly familiar as to forget the respect which one human creature owes to another? That squeamish delicacy which shrinks from the most disgusting offices when affection or humanity lead us to watch at a sick pillow, is despicable. But, why women in health should be more familiar with each other than men are, when they boast of their superiour delicacy, is a solecism in manners which I could never solve.

In order to preserve health and beauty, I should earnestly recommend frequent ablutions, to dignify my advice that it may not offend the fastidious ear; and, by example, girls ought to be taught to wash and dress alone, without any distinction of rank; and if custom should make them require some little assistance, let them not require it till that part of the business is over which ought never to be done before a fellow-creature; because it is an insult to the majesty of human nature. Not on the score of modesty, but decency; for the care which some modest women take, making at the same time a display of that care, not to let their legs be seen, is as childish as immodest.

I could proceed still further, till I animadverted on some still more indelicate customs, which men never fall into. Secrets are told—where silence ought to reign; and that regard to cleanliness, which some religious sects have, perhaps, carried too far, especially the Essenes, amongst the Jews, by making that an insult to God which is only an insult to humanity, is violated in a brutal manner. How can DELICATE women obtrude on notice that part of the animal economy, which is so very disgusting? And is it not very rational to conclude, that the women who have not been taught to respect the human nature of their own sex, in these particulars, will not long respect the mere difference of sex, in their husbands? After their maidenish bashfulness is once lost, I, in fact, have generally observed, that women fall into old habits; and treat their husbands as they did their sisters or female acquaintance.

Besides, women from necessity, because their minds are not cultivated, have recourse very often, to what I familiarly term bodily wit; and their intimacies are of the same kind. In short, with respect to both mind and body, they are too intimate. That decent personal reserve, which is the foundation of dignity of character, must be kept up between women, or their minds will never gain strength or modesty.

On this account also, I object to many females being shut up together in nurseries, schools, or convents. I cannot recollect without indignation, the jokes and hoiden tricks, which knots of young women indulged themselves in, when in my youth accident threw me, an awkward rustic, in their way. They were almost on a par with the double meanings, which shake the convivial table when the glass has circulated freely. But it is vain to attempt to keep the heart pure, unless the head is furnished with ideas, and set to work to compare them, in order, to acquire judgment, by generalizing simple ones; and modesty by making the understanding damp the sensibility.

It may be thought that I lay too great a stress on personal reserve; but it is ever the hand-maid of modesty. So that were I to name the graces that ought to adorn beauty, I should instantly exclaim, cleanliness, neatness, and personal reserve. It is obvious, I suppose, that the reserve I mean, has nothing sexual in it, and that I think it EQUALLY necessary in both sexes. So necessary indeed, is that reserve and cleanliness which indolent women too often neglect, that I will venture to affirm, that when two or three women live in the same house, the one will be most respected by the male part of the family, who reside with them, leaving love entirely out of the question, who pays this kind of habitual respect to her person.

When domestic friends meet in a morning, there will naturally prevail an affectionate seriousness, especially, if each look forward to the discharge of daily duties; and it may be reckoned fanciful, but this sentiment has frequently risen spontaneously in my mind. I have been pleased after breathing the sweet bracing morning air, to see the same kind of freshness in the countenances I particularly loved; I was glad to see them braced, as it were, for the day, and ready to run their course with the sun. The greetings of affection in the morning are by these means more respectful, than the familiar tenderness which frequently prolongs the evening talk. Nay, I have often felt hurt, not to say disgusted, when a friend has appeared, whom I parted with full dressed the evening before, with her clothes huddled on, because she chose to indulge herself in bed till the last moment.

Domestic affection can only be kept alive by these neglected attentions; yet if men and women took half as much pains to dress habitually neat, as they do to ornament, or rather to disfigure their persons, much would be done towards the attainment of purity of mind. But women only dress to gratify men of gallantry; for the lover is always best pleased with the simple garb that sits close to the shape. There is an impertinence in ornaments that rebuffs affection; because love always clings round the idea of home.

As a sex, women are habitually indolent; and every thing tends to make them so. I do not forget the starts of activity which sensibility produces; but as these flights of feeling only increase the evil, they are not to be confounded with the slow, orderly walk of reason. So great, in reality, is their mental and bodily indolence, that till their body be strengthened and their understanding enlarged by active exertions, there is little reason to expect that modesty will take place of bashfulness. They may find it prudent to assume its semblance; but the fair veil will only be worn on gala days.

Perhaps there is not a virtue that mixes so kindly with every other as modesty. It is the pale moon-beam that renders more interesting every virtue it softens, giving mild grandeur to the contracted horizon. Nothing can be more beautiful than the poetical fiction, which makes Diana with her silver crescent, the goddess of chastity. I have sometimes thought, that wandering with sedate step in some lonely recess, a modest dame of antiquity must have felt a glow of conscious dignity, when, after contemplating the soft shadowy landscape, she has invited with placid fervour the mild reflection of her sister's beams to turn to her chaste bosom.

A Christian has still nobler motives to incite her to preserve her chastity and acquire modesty, for her body has been called the Temple of the living God; of that God who requires more than modesty of mien. His eye searcheth the heart; and let her remember, that if she hopeth to find favour in the sight of purity itself, her chastity must be founded on modesty, and not on worldly prudence; or verily a good reputation will be her only reward; for that awful intercourse, that sacred communion, which virtue establishes between man and his Maker, must give rise to the wish of being pure as he is pure!

After the foregoing remarks, it is almost superfluous to add, that I consider all those feminine airs of maturity, which succeed bashfulness, to which truth is sacrificed, to secure the heart of a husband, or rather to force him to be still a lover when nature would, had she not been interrupted in her operations, have made love give place to friendship, as immodest. The tenderness which a man will feel for the mother of his children is an excellent substitute for the ardour of unsatisfied passion; but to prolong that ardour it is indelicate, not to say immodest, for women to feign an unnatural coldness of constitution. Women as well as men ought to have the common appetites and passions of their nature, they are only brutal when unchecked by reason: but the obligation to check them is the duty of mankind, not a sexual duty. Nature, in these respects, may safely be left to herself; let women only acquire knowledge and humanity, and love will teach them modesty. There is no need of falsehoods, disgusting as futile, for studied rules of behaviour only impose on shallow observers; a man of sense soon sees through, and despises the affectation.

The behaviour of young people, to each other, as men and women, is the last thing that should be thought of in education. In fact, behaviour in most circumstances is now so much thought of, that simplicity of character is rarely to be seen; yet, if men were only anxious to cultivate each virtue, and let it take root firmly in the mind, the grace resulting from it, its natural exteriour mark, would soon strip affectation of its flaunting plumes; because, fallacious as unstable, is the conduct that is not founded upon truth!

Would ye, O my sisters, really possess modesty, ye must remember that the possession of virtue, of any denomination, is incompatible with ignorance and vanity! ye must acquire that soberness of mind, which the exercise of duties, and the pursuit of knowledge, alone inspire, or ye will still remain in a doubtful dependent situation, and only be loved whilst ye are fair! the downcast eye, the rosy blush, the retiring grace, are all proper in their season; but modesty, being the child of reason, cannot long exist with the sensibility that is not tempered by reflection. Besides, when love, even innocent love, is the whole employ of your lives, your hearts will be too soft to afford modesty that tranquil retreat, where she delights to dwell, in close union with humanity.

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

CHAPTER 8. MORALITY UNDERMINED BY SEXUAL NOTIONS OF THE IMPORTANCE OF A GOOD REPUTATION.

It has long since occurred to me, that advice respecting behaviour, and all the various modes of preserving a good reputation, which have been so strenuously inculcated on the female world, were specious poisons, that incrusting morality eat away the substance. And, that this measuring of shadows produced a false calculation, because their length depends so much on the height of the sun, and other adventitious circumstances.

>From whence arises the easy fallacious behaviour of a courtier? >From this situation, undoubtedly: for standing in need of dependents, he is obliged to learn the art of denying without giving offence, and, of evasively feeding hope with the chameleon's food; thus does politeness sport with truth, and eating away the sincerity and humanity natural to man, produce the fine gentleman.

Women in the same way acquire, from a supposed necessity, an equally artificial mode of behaviour. Yet truth is not with impunity to be sported with, for the practised dissembler, at last, becomes the dupe of his own arts, loses that sagacity which has been justly termed common sense; namely, a quick perception of common truths: which are constantly received as such by the unsophisticated mind, though it might not have had sufficient energy to discover them itself, when obscured by local prejudices. The greater number of people take their opinions on trust, to avoid the trouble of exercising their own minds, and these indolent beings naturally adhere to the letter, rather than the spirit of a law, divine or human. "Women," says some author, I cannot recollect who, "mind not what only heaven sees." Why, indeed should they? it is the eye of man that they have been taught to dread—and if they can lull their Argus to sleep, they seldom think of heaven or themselves, because their reputation is safe; and it is reputation not chastity and all its fair train, that they are employed to keep free from spot, not as a virtue, but to preserve their station in the world.

To prove the truth of this remark, I need only advert to the intrigues of married women, particularly in high life, and in countries where women are suitably married, according to their respective ranks by their parents. If an innocent girl become a prey to love, she is degraded forever, though her mind was not polluted by the arts which married women, under the convenient cloak of marriage, practise; nor has she violated any duty—but the duty of respecting herself. The married woman, on the contrary, breaks a most sacred engagement, and becomes a cruel mother when she is a false and faithless wife. If her husband has still an affection for her, the arts which she must practise to deceive him, will render her the most contemptible of human beings; and at any rate, the contrivances necessary to preserve appearances, will keep her mind in that childish or vicious tumult which destroys all its energy. Besides, in time, like those people who habitually take cordials to raise their spirits, she will want an intrigue to give life to her thoughts, having lost all relish for pleasures that are not highly seasoned by hope or fear.

Sometimes married women act still more audaciously; I will mention an instance.

A woman of quality, notorious for her gallantries, though as she still lived with her husband, nobody chose to place her in the class where she ought to have been placed, made a point of treating with the most insulting contempt a poor timid creature, abashed by a sense of her former weakness, whom a neighbouring gentleman had seduced and afterwards married. This woman had actually confounded virtue with reputation; and, I do believe, valued herself on the propriety of her behaviour before marriage, though when once settled, to the satisfaction of her family, she and her lord were equally faithless—so that the half alive heir to an immense estate came from heaven knows where!

To view this subject in another light.

I have known a number of women who, if they did not love their husbands, loved nobody else, giving themselves entirely up to vanity and dissipation, neglecting every domestic duty; nay, even squandering away all the money which should have been saved for their helpless younger children, yet have plumed themselves on their unsullied reputation, as if the whole compass of their duty as wives and mothers was only to preserve it. Whilst other indolent women, neglecting every personal duty, have thought that they deserved their husband's affection, because they acted in this respect with propriety.

Weak minds are always fond of resting in the ceremonials of duty, but morality offers much simpler motives; and it were to be wished that superficial moralists had said less respecting behaviour, and outward observances, for unless virtue, of any kind, is built on knowledge, it will only produce a kind of insipid decency. Respect for the opinion of the world, has, however, been termed the principal duty of woman in the most express words, for Rousseau declares, "that reputation is no less indispensable than chastity." "A man," adds he, "secure in his own good conduct, depends only on himself, and may brave the public opinion; but a woman, in behaving well, performs but half her duty; as what is thought of her, is as important to her as what she really is. It follows hence, that the system of a woman's education should, in this respect, be directly contrary to that of ours. Opinion is the grave of virtue among the men; but its throne among women." It is strictly logical to infer, that the virtue that rests on opinion is merely worldly, and that it is the virtue of a being to whom reason has been denied. But, even with respect to the opinion of the world, I am convinced, that this class of reasoners are mistaken.

This regard for reputation, independent of its being one of the natural rewards of virtue, however, took its rise from a cause that I have already deplored as the grand source of female depravity, the impossibility of regaining respectability by a return to virtue, though men preserve theirs during the indulgence of vice. It was natural for women then to endeavour to preserve what once lost—was lost for ever, till this care swallowing up every other care, reputation for chastity, became the one thing needful to the sex. But vain is the scrupulosity of ignorance, for neither religion nor virtue, when they reside in the heart, require such a puerile attention to mere ceremonies, because the behaviour must, upon the whole be proper, when the motive is pure.

To support my opinion I can produce very respectable authority; and the authority of a cool reasoner ought to have weight to enforce consideration, though not to establish a sentiment. Speaking of the general laws of morality, Dr. Smith observes—"That by some very extraordinary and unlucky circumstance, a good man may come to be suspected of a crime of which he was altogether incapable, and upon that account be most unjustly exposed for the remaining part of his life to the horror and aversion of mankind. By an accident of this kind he may be said to lose his all, notwithstanding his integrity and justice, in the same manner as a cautious man, notwithstanding his utmost circumspection, may be ruined by an earthquake or an inundation. Accidents of the first kind, however, are perhaps still more rare, and still more contrary to the common course of things than those of the second; and it still remains true, that the practice of truth, justice and humanity, is a certain and almost infallible method of acquiring what those virtues chiefly aim at, the confidence and love of those we live with. A person may be easily misrepresented with regard to a particular action; but it is scarcely possible that he should be so with regard to the general tenor of his conduct. An innocent man may be believed to have done wrong: this, however, will rarely happen. On the contrary, the established opinion of the innocence of his manners will often lead us to absolve him where he has really been in the fault, notwithstanding very strong presumptions."

I perfectly coincide in opinion with this writer, for I verily believe, that few of either sex were ever despised for certain vices without deserving to be despised. I speak not of the calumny of the moment, which hangs over a character, like one of the dense fogs of November over this metropolis, till it gradually subsides before the common light of day, I only contend, that the daily conduct of the majority prevails to stamp their character with the impression of truth. Quietly does the clear light, shining day after day, refute the ignorant surmise, or malicious tale, which has thrown dirt on a pure character. A false light distorted, for a short time, its shadow—reputation; but it seldom fails to become just when the cloud is dispersed that produced the mistake in vision.

Many people, undoubtedly in several respects, obtain a better reputation than, strictly speaking, they deserve, for unremitting industry will mostly reach its goal in all races. They who only strive for this paltry prize, like the Pharisees, who prayed at the corners of streets, to be seen of men, verily obtain the reward they seek; for the heart of man cannot be read by man! Still the fair fame that is naturally reflected by good actions, when the man is only employed to direct his steps aright, regardless of the lookers-on, is in general, not only more true but more sure.

There are, it is true, trials when the good man must appeal to God from the injustice of man; and amidst the whining candour or hissing of envy, erect a pavilion in his own mind to retire to, till the rumour be overpast; nay, the darts of undeserved censure may pierce an innocent tender bosom through with many sorrows; but these are all exceptions to general rules. And it is according to these common laws that human behaviour ought to be regulated. The eccentric orbit of the comet never influences astronomical calculations respecting the invariable order established in the motion of the principal bodies of the solar system.

I will then venture to affirm, that after a man has arrived at maturity, the general outline of his character in the world is just, allowing for the before mentioned exceptions to the rule. I do not say, that a prudent, worldly-wise man, with only negative virtues and qualities, may not sometimes obtain a smoother reputation than a wiser or a better man. So far from it, that I am apt to conclude from experience, that where the virtue of two people is nearly equal, the most negative character will be liked best by the world at large, whilst the other may have more friends in private life. But the hills and dales, clouds and sunshine, conspicuous in the virtues of great men, set off each other; and though they afford envious weakness a fairer mark to shoot at, the real character will still work its way to light, though bespattered by weak affection, or ingenious malice.

With respect to that anxiety to preserve a reputation hardly earned, which leads sagacious people to analyze it, I shall not make the obvious comment; but I am afraid that morality is very insidiously undermined, in the female world, by the attention being turned to the show instead of the substance. A simple thing is thus made strangely complicated; nay, sometimes virtue and its shadow are set at variance. We should never, perhaps, have heard of Lucretia, had she died to preserve her chastity instead of her reputation. If we really deserve our own good opinion, we shall commonly be respected in the world; but if we pant after higher improvement and higher attainments, it is not sufficient to view ourselves as we suppose that we are viewed by others, though this has been ingeniously argued as the foundation of our moral sentiments. (Smith.) Because each bystander may have his own prejudices, besides the prejudices of his age or country. We should rather endeavour to view ourselves, as we suppose that Being views us, who seeth each thought ripen into action, and whose judgment never swerves from the eternal rule of right. Righteous are all his judgments—just, as merciful!

The humble mind that seeketh to find favour in His sight, and calmly examines its conduct when only His presence is felt, will seldom form a very erroneous opinion of its own virtues. During the still hour of self-collection, the angry brow of offended justice will be fearfully deprecated, or the tie which draws man to the Deity will be recognized in the pure sentiment of reverential adoration, that swells the heart without exciting any tumultuous emotions. In these solemn moments man discovers the germ of those vices, which like the Java tree shed a pestiferous vapour around—death is in the shade! and he perceives them without abhorrence, because he feels himself drawn by some cord of love to all his fellow creatures, for whose follies he is anxious to find every extenuation in their nature—in himself. If I, he may thus argue, who exercise my own mind, and have been refined by tribulation, find the serpent's egg in some fold of my heart, and crush it with difficulty, shall not I pity those who are stamped with less vigour, or who have heedlessly nurtured the insidious reptile till it poisoned the vital stream it sucked? Can I, conscious of my secret sins, throw off my fellow creatures, and calmly see them drop into the chasm of perdition, that yawns to receive them. No! no! The agonized heart will cry with suffocating impatience—I too am a man! and have vices, hid, perhaps, from human eye, that bend me to the dust before God, and loudly tell me when all is mute, that we are formed of the same earth, and breathe the same element. Humanity thus rises naturally out of humility, and twists the cords of love that in various convolutions entangle the heart.

This sympathy extends still further, till a man well pleased observes force in arguments that do not carry conviction to his own bosom, and he gladly places in the fairest light to himself, the shows of reason that have led others astray, rejoiced to find some reason in all the errors of man; though before convinced that he who rules the day makes his sun to shine on all. Yet, shaking hands thus, as it were, with corruption, one foot on earth, the other with bold strides mounts to heaven, and claims kindred with superiour natures. Virtues, unobserved by men, drop their balmy fragrance at this cool hour, and the thirsty land, refreshed by the pure streams of comfort that suddenly gush out, is crowned with smiling verdure; this is the living green on which that eye may look with complacency that is too pure to behold iniquity! But my spirits flag; and I must silently indulge the reverie these reflections lead to, unable to describe the sentiments that have calmed my soul, when watching the rising sun, a soft shower drizzling through the leaves of neighbouring trees, seemed to fall on my languid, yet tranquil spirits, to cool the heart that had been heated by the passions which reason laboured to tame.

The leading principles which run through all my disquisitions, would render it unnecessary to enlarge on this subject, if a constant attention to keep the varnish of the character fresh, and in good condition, were not often inculcated as the sum total of female duty; if rules to regulate the behaviour, and to preserve the reputation, did not too frequently supersede moral obligations. But, with respect to reputation, the attention is confined to a single virtue—chastity. If the honour of a woman, as it is absurdly called, is safe, she may neglect every social duty; nay, ruin her family by gaming and extravagance; yet still present a shameless front —for truly she is an honourable woman!

Mrs. Macaulay has justly observed, that "there is but one fault which a woman of honour may not commit with impunity." She then justly and humanely adds—This has given rise to the trite and foolish observation, that the first fault against chastity in woman has a radical power to deprave the character. But no such frail beings come out of the hands of nature. The human mind is built of nobler materials than to be so easily corrupted; and with all their disadvantages of situation and education, women seldom become entirely abandoned till they are thrown into a state of desperation, by the venomous rancour of their own sex."

But, in proportion as this regard for the reputation of chastity is prized by women, it is despised by men: and the two extremes are equally destructive to morality.

Men are certainly more under the influence of their appetites than women; and their appetites are more depraved by unbridled indulgence, and the fastidious contrivances of satiety. Luxury has introduced a refinement in eating that destroys the constitution; and, a degree of gluttony which is so beastly, that a perception of seemliness of behaviour must be worn out before one being could eat immoderately in the presence of another, and afterwards complain of the oppression that his intemperance naturally produced. Some women, particularly French women, have also lost a sense of decency in this respect; for they will talk very calmly of an indigestion. It were to be wished, that idleness was not allowed to generate, on the rank soil of wealth, those swarms of summer insects that feed on putrefaction; we should not then be disgusted by the sight of such brutal excesses.

There is one rule relative to behaviour that, I think, ought to regulate every other; and it is simply to cherish such an habitual respect for mankind, as may prevent us from disgusting a fellow creature for the sake of a present indulgence. The shameful indolence of many married women, and others a little advanced in life, frequently leads them to sin against delicacy. For, though convinced that the person is the band of union between the sexes, yet, how often do they from sheer indolence, or to enjoy some trifling indulgence, disgust?

The depravity of the appetite, which brings the sexes together, has had a still more fatal effect. Nature must ever be the standard of taste, the guage of appetite—yet how grossly is nature insulted by the voluptuary. Leaving the refinements of love out of the question; nature, by making the gratification of an appetite, in this respect, as well as every other, a natural and imperious law to preserve the species, exalts the appetite, and mixes a little mind and affection with a sensual gust. The feelings of a parent mingling with an instinct merely animal, give it dignity; and the man and woman often meeting on account of the child, a mutual interest and affection is excited by the exercise of a common sympathy. Women then having necessarily some duty to fulfil, more noble than to adorn their persons, would not contentedly be the slaves of casual appetite, which is now the situation of a very considerable number who are, literally speaking, standing dishes to which every glutton may have access.

I may be told, that great as this enormity is, it only affects a devoted part of the sex—devoted for the salvation of the rest. But, false as every assertion might easily be proved, that recommends the sanctioning a small evil to produce a greater good; the mischief does not stop here, for the moral character, and peace of mind, of the chaster part of the sex, is undermined by the conduct of the very women to whom they allow no refuge from guilt: whom they inexorably consign to the exercise of arts that lure their husbands from them, debauch their sons and force them, let not modest women start, to assume, in some degree, the same character themselves. For I will venture to assert, that all the causes of female weakness, as well as depravity, which I have already enlarged on, branch out of one grand cause—want of chastity in men.

This intemperance, so prevalent, depraves the appetite to such a degree, that a wanton stimulus is necessary to rouse it; but the parental design of nature is forgotten, and the mere person, and that, for a moment, alone engrosses the thoughts. So voluptuous, indeed, often grows the lustful prowler, that he refines on female softness.

To satisfy this genius of men, women are made systematically voluptuous, and though they may not all carry their libertinism to the same height, yet this heartless intercourse with the sex, which they allow themselves, depraves both sexes, because the taste of men is vitiated; and women, of all classes, naturally square their behaviour to gratify the taste by which they obtain pleasure and power. Women becoming, consequently weaker, in mind and body, than they ought to be, were one of the grand ends of their being taken into the account, that of bearing and nursing children, have not sufficient strength to discharge the first duty of a mother; and sacrificing to lasciviousness the parental affection, that ennobles instinct, either destroy the embryo in the womb, or cast it off when born. Nature in every thing demands respect, and those who violate her laws seldom violate them with impunity. The weak enervated women who particularly catch the attention of libertines, are unfit to be mothers, though they may conceive; so that the rich sensualist, who has rioted among women, spreading depravity and misery, when he wishes to perpetuate his name, receives from his wife only an half-formed being that inherits both its father's and mother's weakness.

Contrasting the humanity of the present age with the barbarism of antiquity, great stress has been laid on the savage custom of exposing the children whom their parents could not maintain; whilst the man of sensibility, who thus, perhaps, complains, by his promiscuous amours produces a most destructive barrenness and contagious flagitiousness of manners. Surely nature never intended that women, by satisfying an appetite, should frustrate the very purpose for which it was implanted?

I have before observed, that men ought to maintain the women whom they have seduced; this would be one means of reforming female manners, and stopping an abuse that has an equally fatal effect on population and morals. Another, no less obvious, would be to turn the attention of woman to the real virtue of chastity; for to little respect has that woman a claim, on the score of modesty, though her reputation may be white as the driven snow, who smiles on the libertine whilst she spurns the victims of his lawless appetites and their own folly.

Besides, she has a taint of the same folly, pure as she esteems herself, when she studiously adorns her person only to be seen by men, to excite respectful sighs, and all the idle homage of what is called innocent gallantry. Did women really respect virtue for its own sake, they would not seek for a compensation in vanity, for the self-denial which they are obliged to practise to preserve their reputation, nor would they associate with men who set reputation at defiance.

The two sexes mutually corrupt and improve each other. This I believe to be an indisputable truth, extending it to every virtue. Chastity, modesty, public spirit, and all the noble train of virtues, on which social virtue and happiness are built, should be understood and cultivated by all mankind, or they will be cultivated to little effect. And, instead of furnishing the vicious or idle with a pretext for violating some sacred duty, by terming it a sexual one, it would be wiser to show, that nature has not made any difference, for that the unchaste man doubly defeats the purpose of nature by rendering women barren, and destroying his own constitution, though he avoids the shame that pursues the crime in the other sex. These are the physical consequences, the moral are still more alarming; for virtue is only a nominal distinction when the duties of citizens, husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, and directors of families, become merely the selfish ties of convenience.

Why then do philosophers look for public spirit? Public spirit must be nurtured by private virtue, or it will resemble the factitious sentiment which makes women careful to preserve their reputation, and men their honour. A sentiment that often exists unsupported by virtue, unsupported by that sublime morality which makes the habitual breach of one duty a breach of the whole moral law.

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

CHAPTER 9. OF THE PERNICIOUS EFFECTS WHICH ARISE FROM THE UNNATURAL DISTINCTIONS ESTABLISHED IN SOCIETY.

>From the respect paid to property flow, as from a poisoned fountain, most of the evils and vices which render this world such a dreary scene to the contemplative mind. For it is in the most polished society that noisome reptiles and venomous serpents lurk under the rank herbage; and there is voluptuousness pampered by the still sultry air, which relaxes every good disposition before it ripens into virtue.

One class presses on another; for all are aiming to procure respect on account of their property: and property, once gained, will procure the respect due only to talents and virtue. Men neglect the duties incumbent on man, yet are treated like demi-gods; religion is also separated from morality by a ceremonial veil, yet men wonder that the world is almost, literally speaking, a den of sharpers or oppressors.

There is a homely proverb, which speaks a shrewd truth, that whoever the devil finds idle he will employ. And what but habitual idleness can hereditary wealth and titles produce? For man is so constituted that he can only attain a proper use of his faculties by exercising them, and will not exercise them unless necessity, of some kind, first set the wheels in motion. Virtue likewise can only be acquired by the discharge of relative duties; but the importance of these sacred duties will scarcely be felt by the being who is cajoled out of his humanity by the flattery of sycophants. There must be more equality established in society, or morality will never gain ground, and this virtuous equality will not rest firmly even when founded on a rock, if one half of mankind are chained to its bottom by fate, for they will be continually undermining it through ignorance or pride. It is vain to expect virtue from women till they are, in some degree, independent of men; nay, it is vain to expect that strength of natural affection, which would make them good wives and good mothers. Whilst they are absolutely dependent on their husbands, they will be cunning, mean, and selfish, and the men who can be gratified by the fawning fondness, of spaniel-like affection, have not much delicacy, for love is not to be bought, in any sense of the word, its silken wings are instantly shrivelled up when any thing beside a return in kind is sought. Yet whilst wealth enervates men; and women live, as it were, by their personal charms, how, can we expect them to discharge those ennobling duties which equally require exertion and self-denial. Hereditary property sophisticates the mind, and the unfortunate victims to it, if I may so express myself, swathed from their birth, seldom exert the locomotive faculty of body or mind; and, thus viewing every thing through one medium, and that a false one, they are unable to discern in what true merit and happiness consist. False, indeed, must be the light when the drapery of situation hides the man, and makes him stalk in masquerade, dragging from one scene of dissipation to another the nerveless limbs that hang with stupid listlessness, and rolling round the vacant eye which plainly tells us that there is no mind at home.

I mean, therefore, to infer, that the society is not properly organized which does not compel men and women to discharge their respective duties, by making it the only way to acquire that countenance from their fellow creatures, which every human being wishes some way to attain. The respect, consequently, which is paid to wealth and mere personal charms, is a true north-east blast, that blights the tender blossoms of affection and virtue. Nature has wisely attached affections to duties, to sweeten toil, and to give that vigour to the exertions of reason which only the heart can give. But, the affection which is put on merely because it is the appropriated insignia of a certain character, when its duties are not fulfilled is one of the empty compliments which vice and folly are obliged to pay to virtue and the real nature of things.

To illustrate my opinion, I need only observe, that when a woman is admired for her beauty, and suffers herself to be so far intoxicated by the admiration she receives, as to neglect to discharge the indispensable duty of a mother, she sins against herself by neglecting to cultivate an affection that would equally tend to make her useful and happy. True happiness, I mean all the contentment, and virtuous satisfaction that can be snatched in this imperfect state, must arise from well regulated affections; and an affection includes a duty. Men are not aware of the misery they cause, and the vicious weakness they cherish, by only inciting women to render themselves pleasing; they do not consider, that they thus make natural and artificial duties clash, by sacrificing the comfort and respectability of a woman's life to voluptuous notions of beauty, when in nature they all harmonize.

Cold would be the heart of a husband, were he not rendered unnatural by early debauchery, who did not feel more delight at seeing his child suckled by its mother, than the most artful wanton tricks could ever raise; yet this natural way of cementing the matrimonial tie, and twisting esteem with fonder recollections, wealth leads women to spurn. To preserve their beauty, and wear the flowery crown of the day, that gives them a kind of right to reign for a short time over the sex, they neglect to stamp impressions on their husbands' hearts, that would be remembered with more tenderness when the snow on the head began to chill the bosom, than even their virgin charms. The maternal solicitude of a reasonable affectionate woman is very interesting, and the chastened dignity with which a mother returns the caresses that she and her child receive from a father who has been fulfilling the serious duties of his station, is not only a respectable, but a beautiful sight. So singular, indeed, are my feelings, and I have endeavoured not to catch factitious ones, that after having been fatigued with the sight of insipid grandeur and the slavish ceremonies that with cumberous pomp supplied the place of domestic affections, I have turned to some other scene to relieve my eye, by resting it on the refreshing green every where scattered by nature. I have then viewed with pleasure a woman nursing her children, and discharging the duties of her station with, perhaps, merely a servant made to take off her hands the servile part of the household business. I have seen her prepare herself and children, with only the luxury of cleanliness, to receive her husband, who returning weary home in the evening, found smiling babes and a clean hearth. My heart has loitered in the midst of the group, and has even throbbed with sympathetic emotion, when the scraping of the well known foot has raised a pleasing tumult.

Whilst my benevolence has been gratified by contemplating this artless picture, I have thought that a couple of this description, equally necessary and independent of each other, because each fulfilled the respective duties of their station, possessed all that life could give. Raised sufficiently above abject poverty not to be obliged to weigh the consequence of every farthing they spend, and having sufficient to prevent their attending to a frigid system of economy which narrows both heart and mind. I declare, so vulgar are my conceptions, that I know not what is wanted to render this the happiest as well as the most respectable situation in the world, but a taste for literature, to throw a little variety and interest into social converse, and some superfluous money to give to the needy, and to buy books. For it is not pleasant when the heart is opened by compassion, and the head active in arranging plans of usefulness, to have a prim urchin continually twitching back the elbow to prevent the hand from drawing out an almost empty purse, whispering at the same time some prudential maxim about the priority of justice.

Destructive, however, as riches and inherited honours are to the human character, women are more debased and cramped, if possible by them, than men, because men may still, in some degree, unfold their faculties by becoming soldiers and statesmen.

As soldiers, I grant, they can now only gather, for the most part, vainglorious laurels, whilst they adjust to a hair the European balance, taking especial care that no bleak northern nook or sound incline the beam. But the days of true heroism are over, when a citizen fought for his country like a Fabricius or a Washington, and then returned to his farm to let his virtuous fervour run in a more placid, but not a less salutary stream. No, our British heroes are oftener sent from the gaming table than from the plough; and their passions have been rather inflamed by hanging with dumb suspense on the turn of a die, than sublimated by panting after the adventurous march of virtue in the historic page.

The statesman, it is true, might with more propriety quit the Faro Bank, or card-table, to guide the helm, for he has still but to shuffle and trick. The whole system of British politics, if system it may courteously be called, consisting in multiplying dependents and contriving taxes which grind the poor to pamper the rich; thus a war, or any wild goose chace is, as the vulgar use the phrase, a lucky turn-up of patronage for the minister, whose chief merit is the art of keeping himself in place.

It is not necessary then that he should have bowels for the poor, so he can secure for his family the odd trick. Or should some show of respect, for what is termed with ignorant ostentation an Englishman's birth-right, be expedient to bubble the gruff mastiff that he has to lead by the nose, he can make an empty show, very safely, by giving his single voice, and suffering his light squadron to file off to the other side. And when a question of humanity is agitated, he may dip a sop in the milk of human kindness, to silence Cerberus, and talk of the interest which his heart takes in an attempt to make the earth no longer cry for vengeance as it sucks in its children's blood, though his cold hand may at the very moment rivet their chains, by sanctioning the abominable traffick. A minister is no longer a minister than while he can carry a point, which he is determined to carry. Yet it is not necessary that a minister should feel like a man, when a bold push might shake his seat.

But, to have done with these episodical observations, let me return to the more specious slavery which chains the very soul of woman, keeping her for ever under the bondage of ignorance.

The preposterous distinctions of rank, which render civilization a curse, by dividing the world between voluptuous tyrants, and cunning envious dependents, corrupt, almost equally, every class of people, because respectability is not attached to the discharge of the relative duties of life, but to the station, and when the duties are not fulfilled, the affections cannot gain sufficient strength to fortify the virtue of which they are the natural reward. Still there are some loop-holes out of which a man may creep, and dare to think and act for himself; but for a woman it is an herculean task, because she has difficulties peculiar to her sex to overcome, which require almost super-human powers.

A truly benevolent legislator always endeavours to make it the interest of each individual to be virtuous; and thus private virtue becoming the cement of public happiness, an orderly whole is consolidated by the tendency of all the parts towards a common centre. But, the private or public virtue of women is very problematical; for Rousseau, and a numerous list of male writers, insist that she should all her life, be subjected to a severe restraint, that of propriety. Why subject her to propriety—blind propriety, if she be capable of acting from a nobler spring, if she be an heir of immortality? Is sugar always to be produced by vital blood? Is one half of the human species, like the poor African slaves, to be subject to prejudices that brutalize them, when principles would be a surer guard only to sweeten the cup of man? Is not this indirectly to deny women reason? for a gift is a mockery, if it be unfit for use.

Women are in common with men, rendered weak and luxurious by the relaxing pleasures which wealth procures; but added to this, they are made slaves to their persons, and must render them alluring, that man may lend them his reason to guide their tottering steps aright. Or should they be ambitious, they must govern their tyrants by sinister tricks, for without rights there cannot be any incumbent duties. The laws respecting woman, which I mean to discuss in a future part, make an absurd unit of a man and his wife; and then, by the easy transition of only considering him as responsible, she is reduced to a mere cypher.

The being who discharges the duties of its station, is independent; and, speaking of women at large, their first duty is to themselves as rational creatures, and the next, in point of importance, as citizens, is that, which includes so many, of a mother. The rank in life which dispenses with their fulfilling this duty, necessarily degrades them by making them mere dolls. Or, should they turn to something more important than merely fitting drapery upon a smooth block, their minds are only occupied by some soft platonic attachment; or, the actual management of an intrigue may keep their thoughts in motion; for when they neglect domestic duties, they have it not in their power to take the field and march and counter-march like soldiers, or wrangle in the senate to keep their faculties from rusting.

I know, that as a proof of the inferiority of the sex, Rousseau has exultingly exclaimed, How can they leave the nursery for the camp! And the camp has by some moralists been termed the school of the most heroic virtues; though, I think, it would puzzle a keen casuist to prove the reasonableness of the greater number of wars, that have dubbed heroes. I do not mean to consider this question critically; because, having frequently viewed these freaks of ambition as the first natural mode of civilization, when the ground must be torn up, and the woods cleared by fire and sword, I do not choose to call them pests; but surely the present system of war, has little connection with virtue of any denomination, being rather the school of FINESSE and effeminacy, than of fortitude.

Yet, if defensive war, the only justifiable war, in the present advanced state of society, where virtue can show its face and ripen amidst the rigours which purify the air on the mountain's top, were alone to be adopted as just and glorious, the true heroism of antiquity might again animate female bosoms. But fair and softly, gentle reader, male or female, do not alarm thyself, for though I have contrasted the character of a modern soldier with that of a civilized woman, I am not going to advise them to turn their distaff into a musket, though I sincerely wish to see the bayonet converted into a pruning hook. I only recreated an imagination, fatigued by contemplating the vices and follies which all proceed from a feculent stream of wealth that has muddied the pure rills of natural affection, by supposing that society will some time or other be so constituted, that man must necessarily fulfil the duties of a citizen, or be despised, and that while he was employed in any of the departments of civil life, his wife, also an active citizen, should be equally intent to manage her family, educate her children, and assist her neighbours.

But, to render her really virtuous and useful, she must not, if she discharge her civil duties, want, individually, the protection of civil laws; she must not be dependent on her husband's bounty for her subsistence during his life, or support after his death—for how can a being be generous who has nothing of its own? or, virtuous, who is not free? The wife, in the present state of things, who is faithful to her husband, and neither suckles nor educates her children, scarcely deserves the name of a wife, and has no right to that of a citizen. But take away natural rights, and there is of course an end of duties.

Women thus infallibly become only the wanton solace of men, when they are so weak in mind and body, that they cannot exert themselves, unless to pursue some frothy pleasure, or to invent some frivolous fashion. What can be a more melancholy sight to a thinking mind, than to look into the numerous carriages that drive helter-skelter about this metropolis in a morning, full of pale-faced creatures who are flying from themselves. I have often wished, with Dr. Johnson, to place some of them in a little shop, with half a dozen children looking up to their languid countenances for support. I am much mistaken, if some latent vigour would not soon give health and spirit to their eyes, and some lines drawn by the exercise of reason on the blank cheeks, which before were only undulated by dimples, might restore lost dignity to the character, or rather enable it to attain the true dignity of its nature. Virtue is not to be acquired even by speculation, much less by the negative supineness that wealth naturally generates.

Besides, when poverty is more disgraceful than even vice, is not morality cut to the quick? Still to avoid misconstruction, though I consider that women in the common walks of life are called to fulfil the duties of wives and mothers, by religion and reason, I cannot help lamenting that women of a superiour cast have not a road open by which they can pursue more extensive plans of usefulness and independence. I may excite laughter, by dropping an hint, which I mean to pursue, some future time, for I really think that women ought to have representatives, instead of being arbitrarily governed without having any direct share allowed them in the deliberations of government.

But, as the whole system of representation is now, in this country, only a convenient handle for despotism, they need not complain, for they are as well represented as a numerous class of hard working mechanics, who pay for the support of royality when they can scarcely stop their children's mouths with bread. How are they represented, whose very sweat supports the splendid stud of an heir apparent, or varnishes the chariot of some female favourite who looks down on shame? Taxes on the very necessaries of life, enable an endless tribe of idle princes and princesses to pass with stupid pomp before a gaping crowd, who almost worship the very parade which costs them so dear. This is mere gothic grandeur, something like the barbarous, useless parade of having sentinels on horseback at Whitehall, which I could never view without a mixture of contempt and indignation.

How strangely must the mind be sophisticated when this sort of state impresses it! But till these monuments of folly are levelled by virtue, similar follies will leaven the whole mass. For the same character, in some degree, will prevail in the aggregate of society: and the refinements of luxury, or the vicious repinings of envious poverty, will equally banish virtue from society, considered as the characteristic of that society, or only allow it to appear as one of the stripes of the harlequin coat, worn by the civilized man.

In the superiour ranks of life, every duty is done by deputies, as if duties could ever be waved, and the vain pleasures which consequent idleness forces the rich to pursue, appear so enticing to the next rank, that the numerous scramblers for wealth sacrifice every thing to tread on their heels. The most sacred trusts are then considered as sinecures, because they were procured by interest, and only sought to enable a man to keep GOOD COMPANY. Women, in particular, all want to be ladies. Which is simply to have nothing to do, but listlessly to go they scarcely care where, for they cannot tell what.

But what have women to do in society? I may be asked, but to loiter with easy grace; surely you would not condemn them all to suckle fools, and chronicle small beer! No. Women might certainly study the art of healing, and be physicians as well as nurses. And midwifery, decency seems to allot to them, though I am afraid the word midwife, in our dictionaries, will soon give place to accoucheur, and one proof of the former delicacy of the sex be effaced from the language.

They might, also study politics, and settle their benevolence on the broadest basis; for the reading of history will scarcely be more useful than the perusal of romances, if read as mere biography; if the character of the times, the political improvements, arts, etc. be not observed. In short, if it be not considered as the history of man; and not of particular men, who filled a niche in the temple of fame, and dropped into the black rolling stream of time, that silently sweeps all before it, into the shapeless void called eternity. For shape can it be called, "that shape hath none?"

Business of various kinds, they might likewise pursue, if they were educated in a more orderly manner, which might save many from common and legal prostitution. Women would not then marry for a support, as men accept of places under government, and neglect the implied duties; nor would an attempt to earn their own subsistence, a most laudable one! sink them almost to the level of those poor abandoned creatures who live by prostitution. For are not milliners and mantuamakers reckoned the next class? The few employments open to women, so far from being liberal, are menial; and when a superior education enables them to take charge of the education of children as governesses, they are not treated like the tutors of sons, though even clerical tutors are not always treated in a manner calculated to render them respectable in the eyes of their pupils, to say nothing of the private comfort of the individual. But as women educated like gentlewomen, are never designed for the humiliating situation which necessity sometimes forces them to fill; these situations are considered in the light of a degradation; and they know little of the human heart, who need to be told, that nothing so painfully sharpens the sensibility as such a fall in life.

Some of these women might be restrained from marrying by a proper spirit or delicacy, and others may not have had it in their power to escape in this pitiful way from servitude; is not that government then very defective, and very unmindful of the happiness of one half of its members, that does not provide for honest, independent women, by encouraging them to fill respectable stations? But in order to render their private virtue a public benefit, they must have a civil existence in the state, married or single; else we shall continually see some worthy woman, whose sensibility has been rendered painfully acute by undeserved contempt, droop like "the lily broken down by a plough share."

It is a melancholy truth; yet such is the blessed effects of civilization! the most respectable women are the most oppressed; and, unless they have understandings far superiour to the common run of understandings, taking in both sexes, they must, from being treated like contemptible beings, become contemptible. How many women thus waste life away, the prey of discontent, who might have practised as physicians, regulated a farm, managed a shop, and stood erect, supported by their own industry, instead of hanging their heads surcharged with the dew of sensibility, that consumes the beauty to which it at first gave lustre; nay, I doubt whether pity and love are so near a-kin as poets feign, for I have seldom seen much compassion excited by the helplessness of females, unless they were fair; then, perhaps, pity was the soft handmaid of love, or the harbinger of lust.

How much more respectable is the woman who earns her own bread by fulfilling any duty, than the most accomplished beauty! beauty did I say? so sensible am I of the beauty of moral loveliness, or the harmonious propriety that attunes the passions of a well-regulated mind, that I blush at making the comparison; yet I sigh to think how few women aim at attaining this respectability, by withdrawing from the giddy whirl of pleasure, or the indolent calm that stupifies the good sort of women it sucks in.

Proud of their weakness, however, they must always be protected, guarded from care, and all the rough toils that dignify the mind. If this be the fiat of fate, if they will make themselves insignificant and contemptible, sweetly to waste "life away," let them not expect to be valued when their beauty fades, for it is the fate of the fairest flowers to be admired and pulled to pieces by the careless hand that plucked them. In how many ways do I wish, from the purest benevolence, to impress this truth on my sex; yet I fear that they will not listen to a truth, that dear-bought experience has brought home to many an agitated bosom, nor willingly resign the privileges of rank and sex for the privileges of humanity, to which those have no claim who do not discharge its duties.

Those writers are particularly useful, in my opinion, who make man feel for man, independent of the station he fills, or the drapery of factitious sentiments. I then would fain convince reasonable men of the importance of some of my remarks and prevail on them to weigh dispassionately the whole tenor of my observations. I appeal to their understandings; and, as a fellow-creature claim, in the name of my sex, some interest in their hearts. I entreat them to assist to emancipate their companion to make her a help meet for them!

Would men but generously snap our chains, and be content with rational fellowship, instead of slavish obedience, they would find us more observant daughters, more affectionate sisters, more faithful wives, more reasonable mothers—in a word, better citizens. We should then love them with true affection, because we should learn to respect ourselves; and the peace of mind of a worthy man would not be interrupted by the idle vanity of his wife, nor his babes sent to nestle in a strange bosom, having never found a home in their mother's.

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

CHAPTER 10. PARENTAL AFFECTION.

Parental affection is, perhaps, the blindest modification of perverse self-love; for we have not, like the French two terms (L'amour propre, L'amour de soi meme) to distinguish the pursuit of a natural and reasonable desire, from the ignorant calculations of weakness. Parents often love their children in the most brutal manner, and sacrifice every relative duty to promote their advancement in the world. To promote, such is the perversity of unprincipled prejudices, the future welfare of the very beings whose present existence they imbitter by the most despotic stretch of power. Power, in fact, is ever true to its vital principle, for in every shape it would reign without controul or inquiry. Its throne is built across a dark abyss, which no eye must dare to explore, lest the baseless fabric should totter under investigation. Obedience, unconditional obedience, is the catch-word of tyrants of every description, and to render "assurance doubly sure," one kind of despotism supports another. Tyrants would have cause to tremble if reason were to become the rule of duty in any of the relations of life, for the light might spread till perfect day appeared. And when it did appear, how would men smile at the sight of the bugbears at which they started during the night of ignorance, or the twilight of timid inquiry.

Parental affection, indeed, in many minds, is but a pretext to tyrannize where it can be done with impunity, for only good and wise men are content with the respect that will bear discussion. Convinced that they have a right to what they insist on, they do not fear reason, or dread the sifting of subjects that recur to natural justice: because they firmly believe, that the more enlightened the human mind becomes, the deeper root will just and simple principles take. They do not rest in expedients, or grant that what is metaphysically true can be practically false; but disdaining the shifts of the moment they calmly wait till time, sanctioning innovation, silences the hiss of selfishness or envy.

If the power of reflecting on the past, and darting the keen eye of contemplation into futurity, be the grand privilege of man, it must be granted that some people enjoy this prerogative in a very limited degree. Every thing now appears to them wrong; and not able to distinguish the possible from the monstrous, they fear where no fear should find a place, running from the light of reason as if it were a firebrand; yet the limits of the possible have never been defined to stop the sturdy innovator's hand.

Woman, however, a slave in every situation to prejudice seldom exerts enlightened maternal affection; for she either neglects her children, or spoils them by improper indulgence. Besides, the affection of some women for their children is, as I have before termed it, frequently very brutish; for it eradicates every spark of humanity. Justice, truth, every thing is sacrificed by these Rebekahs, and for the sake of their own children they violate the most sacred duties, forgetting the common relationship that binds the whole family on earth together. Yet, reason seems to say, that they who suffer one duty, or affection to swallow up the rest, have not sufficient heart or mind to fulfil that one conscientiously. It then loses the venerable aspect of a duty, and assumes the fantastic form of a whim.

As the care of children in their infancy is one of the grand duties annexed to the female character by nature, this duty would afford many forcible arguments for strengthening the female understanding, if it were properly considered.

The formation of the mind must be begun very early, and the temper, in particular, requires the most judicious attention—an attention which women cannot pay who only love their children because they are their children, and seek no further for the foundation of their duty, than in the feelings of the moment. It is this want of reason in their affections which makes women so often run into extremes, and either be the most fond, or most careless and unnatural mothers.

To be a good mother—a woman must have sense, and that independence of mind which few women possess who are taught to depend entirely on their husbands. Meek wives are, in general, foolish mothers; wanting their children to love them best, and take their part, in secret, against the father, who is held up as a scarecrow. If they are to be punished, though they have offended the mother, the father must inflict the punishment; he must be the judge in all disputes: but I shall more fully discuss this subject when I treat of private education, I now only mean to insist, that unless the understanding of woman be enlarged, and her character rendered more firm, by being allowed to govern her own conduct, she will never have sufficient sense or command of temper to manage her children properly. Her parental affection, indeed, scarcely deserves the name, when it does not lead her to suckle her children, because the discharge of this duty is equally calculated to inspire maternal and filial affection; and it is the indispensable duty of men and women to fulfil the duties which give birth to affections that are the surest preservatives against vice. Natural affection, as it is termed, I believe to be a very weak tie, affections must grow out of the habitual exercise of a mutual sympathy; and what sympathy does a mother exercise who sends her babe to a nurse, and only takes it from a nurse to send it to a school?

In the exercise of their natural feelings, providence has furnished women with a natural substitute for love, when the lover becomes only a friend and mutual confidence takes place of overstrained admiration—a child then gently twists the relaxing cord, and a mutual care produces a new mutual sympathy. But a child, though a pledge of affection, will not enliven it, if both father and mother are content to transfer the charge to hirelings; for they who do their duty by proxy should not murmur if they miss the reward of duty—parental affection produces filial duty.

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

CHAPTER 11. DUTY TO PARENTS.

There seems to be an indolent propensity in man to make prescription always take place of reason, and to place every duty on an arbitrary foundation. The rights of kings are deduced in a direct line from the King of kings; and that of parents from our first parent.

Why do we thus go back for principles that should always rest on the same base, and have the same weight to-day that they had a thousand years ago—and not a jot more? If parents discharge their duty they have a strong hold and sacred claim on the gratitude of their children; but few parents are willing to receive the respectful affection of their offspring on such terms. They demand blind obedience, because they do not merit a reasonable service: and to render these demands of weakness and ignorance more binding, a mysterious sanctity is spread round the most arbitrary principle; for what other name can be given to the blind duty of obeying vicious or weak beings, merely because they obeyed a powerful instinct? The simple definition of the reciprocal duty, which naturally subsists between parent and child, may be given in a few words: The parent who pays proper attention to helpless infancy has a right to require the same attention when the feebleness of age comes upon him. But to subjugate a rational being to the mere will of another, after he is of age to answer to society for his own conduct, is a most cruel and undue stretch of power; and perhaps as injurious to morality, as those religious systems which do not allow right and wrong to have any existence, but in the Divine will.

I never knew a parent who had paid more than common attention to his children, disregarded (Dr. Johnson makes the same observation.); on the contrary, the early habit of relying almost implicitly on the opinion of a respected parent is not easily shaken, even when matured reason convinces the child that his father is not the wisest man in the world. This weakness, for a weakness it is, though the epithet AMIABLE may be tacked to it, a reasonable man must steel himself against; for the absurd duty, too often inculcated, of obeying a parent only on account of his being a parent, shackles the mind, and prepares it for a slavish submission to any power but reason.

I distinguish between the natural and accidental duty due to parents.

The parent who sedulously endeavours to form the heart and enlarge the understanding of his child, has given that dignity to the discharge of a duty, common to the whole animal world, that only reason can give. This is the parental affection of humanity, and leaves instinctive natural affection far behind. Such a parent acquires all the rights of the most sacred friendship, and his advice, even when his child is advanced in life, demands serious consideration.

With respect to marriage, though after one and twenty a parent seems to have no right to withhold his consent on any account; yet twenty years of solicitude call for a return, and the son ought, at least, to promise not to marry for two or three years, should the object of his choice not entirely meet with the approbation of his first friend.

But, respect for parents is, generally speaking, a much more debasing principle; it is only a selfish respect for property. The father who is blindly obeyed, is obeyed from sheer weakness, or from motives that degrade the human character.

A great proportion of the misery that wanders, in hideous forms around the world, is allowed to rise from the negligence of parents; and still these are the people who are most tenacious of what they term a natural right, though it be subversive of the birth right of man, the right of acting according to the direction of his own reason.

I have already very frequently had occasion to observe, that vicious or indolent people are always eager to profit by enforcing arbitrary privileges; and generally in the same proportion as they neglect the discharge of the duties which alone render the privileges reasonable. This is at the bottom, a dictate of common sense, or the instinct of self-defence, peculiar to ignorant weakness; resembling that instinct, which makes a fish muddy the water it swims in to elude its enemy, instead of boldly facing it in the clear stream.

>From the clear stream of argument, indeed, the supporters of prescription, of every denomination, fly: and taking refuge in the darkness, which, in the language of sublime poetry, has been supposed to surround the throne of Omnipotence, they dare to demand that implicit respect which is only due to His unsearchable ways. But, let me not be thought presumptuous, the darkness which hides our God from us, only respects speculative truths— it never obscures moral ones, they shine clearly, for God is light, and never, by the constitution of our nature, requires the discharge of a duty, the reasonableness of which does not beam on us when we open our eyes.

The indolent parent of high rank may, it is true, extort a show of respect from his child, and females on the continent are particularly subject to the views of their families, who never think of consulting their inclination, or providing for the comfort of the poor victims of their pride. The consequence is notorious; these dutiful daughters become adulteresses, and neglect the education of their children, from whom they, in their turn, exact the same kind of obedience.

Females, it is true, in all countries, are too much under the dominion of their parents; and few parents think of addressing their children in the following manner, though it is in this reasonable way that Heaven seems to command the whole human race. It is your interest to obey me till you can judge for yourself; and the Almighty Father of all has implanted an affection in me to serve as a guard to you whilst your reason is unfolding; but when your mind arrives at maturity, you must only obey me, or rather respect my opinions, so far as they coincide with the light that is breaking in on your own mind.

A slavish bondage to parents cramps every faculty of the mind; and Mr. Locke very judiciously observes, that "if the mind be curbed and humbled too much in children; if their spirits be abased and broken much by too strict an hand over them; they lose all their vigour and industry." This strict hand may, in some degree, account for the weakness of women; for girls, from various causes, are more kept down by their parents, in every sense of the word, than boys. The duty expected from them is, like all the duties arbitrarily imposed on women, more from a sense of propriety, more out of respect for decorum, than reason; and thus taught slavishly to submit to their parents, they are prepared for the slavery of marriage. I may be told that a number of women are not slaves in the marriage state. True, but they then become tyrants; for it is not rational freedom, but a lawless kind of power, resembling the authority exercised by the favourites of absolute monarchs, which they obtain by debasing means. I do not, likewise, dream of insinuating that either boys or girls are always slaves, I only insist, that when they are obliged to submit to authority blindly, their faculties are weakened, and their tempers rendered imperious or abject. I also lament, that parents, indolently availing themselves of a supposed privilege, damp the first faint glimmering of reason rendering at the same time the duty, which they are so anxious to enforce, an empty name; because they will not let it rest on the only basis on which a duty can rest securely: for, unless it be founded on knowledge, it cannot gain sufficient strength to resist the squalls of passion, or the silent sapping of self-love. But it is not the parents who have given the surest proof of their affection for their children, (or, to speak more properly, who by fulfilling their duty, have allowed a natural parental affection to take root in their hearts, the child of exercised sympathy and reason, and not the over-weening offspring of selfish pride,) who most vehemently insist on their children submitting to their will, merely because it is their will. On the contrary, the parent who sets a good example, patiently lets that example work; and it seldom fails to produce its natural effect—filial respect.

Children cannot be taught too early to submit to reason, the true definition of that necessity, which Rousseau insisted on, without defining it; for to submit to reason, is to submit to the nature of things, and to that God who formed them so, to promote our real interest.

Why should the minds of children be warped as they just begin to expand, only to favour the indolence of parents, who insist on a privilege without being willing to pay the price fixed by nature? I have before had occasion to observe, that a right always includes a duty, and I think it may, likewise fairly be inferred, that they forfeit the right, who do not fulfil the duty.

It is easier, I grant, to command than reason; but it does not follow from hence, that children cannot comprehend the reason why they are made to do certain things habitually; for, from a steady adherence to a few simple principles of conduct flows that salutary power, which a judicious parent gradually gains over a child's mind. And this power becomes strong indeed, if tempered by an even display of affection brought home to the child's heart. For, I believe, as a general rule, it must be allowed, that the affection which we inspire always resembles that we cultivate; so that natural affections, which have been supposed almost distinct from reason, may be found more nearly connected with judgment than is commonly allowed. Nay, as another proof of the necessity of cultivating the female understanding, it is but just to observe, that the affections seem to have a kind of animal capriciousness when they merely reside in the heart.

It is the irregular exercise of parental authority that first injures the mind, and to these irregularities girls are more subject than boys. The will of those who never allow their will to be disputed, unless they happen to be in a good humour, when they relax proportionally, is almost always unreasonable. To elude this arbitrary authority, girls very early learn the lessons which they afterwards practise on their husbands; for I have frequently seen a little sharp-faced miss rule a whole family, excepting that now and then mamma's anger will burst out of some accidental cloud— either her hair was ill-dressed, or she had lost more money at cards, the night before, than she was willing to own to her husband; or some such moral cause of anger.

After observing sallies of this kind, I have been led into a melancholy train of reflection respecting females, concluding that when their first affection must lead them astray, or make their duties clash till they rest on mere whims and customs, little can be expected from them as they advance in life. How, indeed, can an instructor remedy this evil? for to teach them virtue on any solid principle is to teach them to despise their parents. Children cannot, ought not to be taught to make allowance for the faults of their parents, because every such allowance weakens the force of reason in their minds, and makes them still more indulgent to their own. It is one of the most sublime virtues of maturity that leads us to be severe with respect to ourselves, and forbearing to others; but children should only be taught the simple virtues, for if they begin too early to make allowance for human passions and manners, they wear off the fine edge of the criterion by which they should regulate their own, and become unjust in the same proportion as they grow indulgent.

The affections of children, and weak people, are always selfish; they love others, because others love them, and not on account of their virtues. Yet, till esteem and love are blended together in the first affection, and reason made the foundation of the first duty, morality will stumble at the threshold. But, till society is very differently constituted, parents, I fear, will still insist on being obeyed, because they will be obeyed, and constantly endeavour to settle that power on a Divine right, which will not bear the investigation of reason.

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

CHAPTER 12. ON NATIONAL EDUCATION.

The good effects resulting from attention to private education will ever be very confined, and the parent who really puts his own hand to the plow, will always, in some degree be disappointed, till education becomes a grand national concern. A man cannot retire into a desert with his child, and if he did, he could not bring himself back to childhood, and become the proper friend and play-fellow of an infant or youth. And when children are confined to the society of men and women, they very soon acquire that kind of premature manhood which stops the growth of every vigorous power of mind or body. In order to open their faculties they should be excited to think for themselves; and this can only be done by mixing a number of children together, and making them jointly pursue the same objects.

A child very soon contracts a benumbing indolence of mind, which he has seldom sufficient vigour to shake off, when he only asks a question instead of seeking for information, and then relies implicitly on the answer he receives. With his equals in age this could never be the case, and the subjects of inquiry, though they might be influenced, would not be entirely under the direction of men, who frequently damp, if not destroy abilities, by bringing them forward too hastily: and too hastily they will infallibly be brought forward, if the child could be confined to the society of a man, however sagacious that man may be.

Besides, in youth the seeds of every affection should be sown, and the respectful regard, which is felt for a parent, is very different from the social affections that are to constitute the happiness of life as it advances. Of these, equality is the basis, and an intercourse of sentiments unclogged by that observant seriousness which prevents disputation, though it may not inforce submission. Let a child have ever such an affection for his parent, he will always languish to play and chat with children; and the very respect he entertains, for filial esteem always has a dash of fear mixed with it, will, if it do not teach him cunning, at least prevent him from pouring out the little secrets which first open the heart to friendship and confidence, gradually leading to more expansive benevolence. Added to this, he will never acquire that frank ingenuousness of behaviour, which young people can only attain by being frequently in society, where they dare to speak what they think; neither afraid of being reproved for their presumption, nor laughed at for their folly.

Forcibly impressed by the reflections which the sight of schools, as they are at present conducted, naturally suggested, I have formerly delivered my opinion rather warmly in favour of a private education; but further experience has led me to view the subject in a different light. I still, however, think schools, as they are now regulated, the hot-beds of vice and folly, and the knowledge of human nature, supposed to be attained there, merely cunning selfishness.

At school, boys become gluttons and slovens, and, instead of cultivating domestic affections, very early rush into the libertinism which destroys the constitution before it is formed; hardening the heart as it weakens the understanding.

I should, in fact, be averse to boarding-schools, if it were for no other reason than the unsettled state of mind which the expectation of the vacations produce. On these the children's thoughts are fixed with eager anticipating hopes, for, at least, to speak with moderation, half of the time, and when they arrive they are spent in total dissipation and beastly indulgence.

But, on the contrary, when they are brought up at home, though they may pursue a plan of study in a more orderly manner than can be adopted, when near a fourth part of the year is actually spent in idleness, and as much more in regret and anticipation; yet they there acquire too high an opinion of their own importance, from being allowed to tyrannize over servants, and from the anxiety expressed by most mothers, on the score of manners, who, eager to teach the accomplishments of a gentleman, stifle, in their birth, the virtues of a man. Thus brought into company when they ought to be seriously employed, and treated like men when they are still boys, they become vain and effeminate.

The only way to avoid two extremes equally injurious to morality, would be to contrive some way of combining a public and private education. Thus to make men citizens, two natural steps might be taken, which seem directly to lead to the desired point; for the domestic affections, that first open the heart to the various modifications of humanity would be cultivated, whilst the children were nevertheless allowed to spend great part of their time, on terms of equality, with other children.

I still recollect, with pleasure, the country day school; where a boy trudged in the morning, wet or dry, carrying his books, and his dinner, if it were at a considerable distance; a servant did not then lead master by the hand, for, when he had once put on coat and breeches, he was allowed to shift for himself, and return alone in the evening to recount the feats of the day close at the parental knee. His father's house was his home, and was ever after fondly remembered; nay, I appeal to some superior men who were educated in this manner, whether the recollection of some shady lane where they conned their lesson; or, of some stile, where they sat making a kite, or mending a bat, has not endeared their country to them?

But, what boy ever recollected with pleasure the years he spent in close confinement, at an academy near London? unless indeed he should by chance remember the poor scare-crow of an usher whom he tormented; or, the tartman, from whom he caught a cake, to devour it with the cattish appetite of selfishness. At boarding schools of every description, the relaxation of the junior boys is mischief; and of the senior, vice. Besides, in great schools what can be more prejudicial to the moral character, than the system of tyranny and abject slavery which is established amongst the boys, to say nothing of the slavery to forms, which makes religion worse than a farce? For what good can be expected from the youth who receives the sacrament of the Lord's supper, to avoid forfeiting half-a-guinea, which he probably afterwards spends in some sensual manner? Half the employment of the youths is to elude the necessity of attending public worship; and well they may, for such a constant repetition of the same thing must be a very irksome restraint on their natural vivacity. As these ceremonies have the most fatal effect on their morals, and as a ritual performed by the lips, when the heart and mind are far away, is not now stored up by our church as a bank to draw on for the fees of the poor souls in purgatory, why should they not be abolished?

But the fear of innovation, in this country, extends to every thing. This is only a covert fear, the apprehensive timidity of indolent slugs, who guard, by sliming it over, the snug place, which they consider in the light of an hereditary estate; and eat, drink, and enjoy themselves, instead of fulfilling the duties, excepting a few empty forms, for which it was endowed. These are the people who most strenuously insist on the will of the founder being observed, crying out against all reformation, as if it were a violation of justice. I am now alluding particularly to the relicks of popery retained in our colleges, where the protestant members seem to be such sticklers for the established church; but their zeal never makes them lose sight of the spoil of ignorance, which rapacious priests of superstitious memory have scraped together. No, wise in their generation, they venerate the prescriptive right of possession, as a strong hold, and still let the sluggish bell tingle to prayers, as during the days, when the elevation of the host was supposed to atone for the sins of the people, lest one reformation should lead to another, and the spirit kill the letter. These Romish customs have the most baneful effect on the morals of our clergy; for the idle vermin who two or three times a day perform, in the most slovenly manner a service which they think useless, but call their duty, soon lose a sense of duty. At college, forced to attend or evade public worship, they acquire an habitual contempt for the very service, the performance of which is to enable them to live in idleness. It is mumbled over as an affair of business, as a stupid boy repeats his task, and frequently the college cant escapes from the preacher the moment after he has left the pulpit, and even whilst he is eating the dinner which he earned in such a dishonest manner.

Nothing, indeed, can be more irreverent than the cathedral service as it is now performed in this country, neither does it contain a set of weaker men than those who are the slaves of this childish routine. A disgusting skeleton of the former state is still exhibited; but all the solemnity, that interested the imagination, if it did not purify the heart, is stripped off. The performance of high mass on the continent must impress every mind, where a spark of fancy glows, with that awful melancholy, that sublime tenderness, so near a-kin to devotion. I do not say, that these devotional feelings are of more use, in a moral sense, than any other emotion of taste; but I contend, that the theatrical pomp which gratifies our senses, is to be preferred to the cold parade that insults the understanding without reaching the heart.

Amongst remarks on national education, such observations cannot be misplaced, especially as the supporters of these establishments, degenerated into puerilities, affect to be the champions of religion. Religion, pure source of comfort in this vale of tears! how has thy clear stream been muddied by the dabblers, who have presumptuously endeavoured to confine in one narrow channel, the living waters that ever flow toward God— the sublime ocean of existence! What would life be without that peace which the love of God, when built on humanity, alone can impart? Every earthly affection turns back, at intervals, to prey upon the heart that feeds it; and the purest effusions of benevolence, often rudely damped by men, must mount as a free-will offering to Him who gave them birth, whose bright image they faintly reflect.

In public schools, however, religion, confounded with irksome ceremonies and unreasonable restraints, assumes the most ungracious aspect: not the sober austere one that commands respect whilst it inspires fear; but a ludicrous cast, that serves to point a pun. For, in fact, most of the good stories and smart things which enliven the spirits that have been concentrated at whist, are manufactured out of the incidents to which the very men labour to give a droll turn who countenance the abuse to live on the spoil.

There is not, perhaps, in the kingdom, a more dogmatical or luxurious set of men, than the pedantic tyrants who reside in colleges and preside at public schools. The vacations are equally injurious to the morals of the masters and pupils, and the intercourse, which the former keep up with the nobility, introduces the same vanity and extravagance into their families, which banish domestic duties and comforts from the lordly mansion, whose state is awkwardly aped on a smaller scale. The boys, who live at a great expence with the masters and assistants, are never domesticated, though placed there for that purpose; for, after a silent dinner, they swallow a hasty glass of wine, and retire to plan some mischievous trick, or to ridicule the person or manners of the very people they have just been cringing to, and whom they ought to consider as the representatives of their parents.

Can it then be a matter of surprise, that boys become selfish and vicious who are thus shut out from social converse? or that a mitre often graces the brow of one of these diligent pastors? The desire of living in the same style, as the rank just above them, infects each individual and every class of people, and meanness is the concomitant of this ignoble ambition; but those professions are most debasing whose ladder is patronage; yet out of one of these professions the tutors of youth are in general chosen. But, can they be expected to inspire independent sentiments, whose conduct must be regulated by the cautious prudence that is ever on the watch for preferment?

So far, however, from thinking of the morals of boys, I have heard several masters of schools argue, that they only undertook to teach Latin and Greek; and that they had fulfilled their duty, by sending some good scholars to college.

A few good scholars, I grant, may have been formed by emulation and discipline; but, to bring forward these clever boys, the health and morals of a number have been sacrificed.

The sons of our gentry and wealthy commoners are mostly educated at these seminaries, and will any one pretend to assert, that the majority, making every allowance, come under the description of tolerable scholars?

It is not for the benefit of society that a few brilliant men should be brought forward at the expence of the multitude. It is true, that great men seem to start up, as great revolutions occur, at proper intervals, to restore order, and to blow aside the clouds that thicken over the face of truth; but let more reason and virtue prevail in society, and these strong winds would not be necessary. Public education, of every denomination, should be directed to form citizens; but if you wish to make good citizens, you must first exercise the affections of a son and a brother. This is the only way to expand the heart; for public affections, as well as public virtues, must ever grow out of the private character, or they are merely meteors that shoot athwart a dark sky, and disappear as they are gazed at and admired.

Few, I believe, have had much affection for mankind, who did not first love their parents, their brothers, sisters, and even the domestic brutes, whom they first played with. The exercise of youthful sympathies forms the moral temperature; and it is the recollection of these first affections and pursuits, that gives life to those that are afterwards more under the direction of reason. In youth, the fondest friendships are formed, the genial juices mounting at the same time, kindly mix; or, rather the heart, tempered for the reception of friendship, is accustomed to seek for pleasure in something more noble than the churlish gratification of appetite.

In order then to inspire a love of home and domestic pleasures, children ought to be educated at home, for riotous holidays only make them fond of home for their own sakes. Yet, the vacations, which do not foster domestic affections, continually disturb the course of study, and render any plan of improvement abortive which includes temperance; still, were they abolished, children would be entirely separated from their parents, and I question whether they would become better citizens by sacrificing the preparatory affections, by destroying the force of relationships that render the marriage state as necessary as respectable. But, if a private education produce self-importance, or insulates a man in his family, the evil is only shifted, not remedied.

This train of reasoning brings me back to a subject, on which I mean to dwell, the necessity of establishing proper day-schools.

But these should be national establishments, for whilst school-masters are dependent on the caprice of parents, little exertion can be expected from them, more than is necessary to please ignorant people. Indeed, the necessity of a master's giving the parents some sample of the boy's abilities, which during the vacation, is shown to every visiter, is productive of more mischief than would at first be supposed. For they are seldom done entirely, to speak with moderation, by the child itself; thus the master countenances falsehoods, or winds the poor machine up to some extraordinary exertion, that injures the wheels, and stops the progress of gradual improvement. The memory is loaded with unintelligible words, to make a show of, without the understanding's acquiring any distinct ideas: but only that education deserves emphatically to be termed cultivation of mind, which teaches young people how to begin to think. The imagination should not be allowed to debauch the understanding before it gained strength, or vanity will become the forerunner of vice: for every way of exhibiting the acquirements of a child is injurious to its moral character.

How much time is lost in teaching them to recite what they do not understand! whilst, seated on benches, all in their best array, the mammas listen with astonishment to the parrot-like prattle, uttered in solemn cadences, with all the pomp of ignorance and folly. Such exhibitions only serve to strike the spreading fibres of vanity through the whole mind; for they neither teach children to speak fluently, nor behave gracefully. So far from it, that these frivolous pursuits might comprehensively be termed the study of affectation: for we now rarely see a simple, bashful boy, though few people of taste were ever disgusted by that awkward sheepishness so natural to the age, which schools and an early introduction into society, have changed into impudence and apish grimace.

Yet, how can these things be remedied whilst schoolmasters depend entirely on parents for a subsistence; and when so many rival schools hang out their lures to catch the attention of vain fathers and mothers, whose parental affection only leads them to wish, that their children should outshine those of their neighbours?

Without great good luck, a sensible, conscientious man, would starve before he could raise a school, if he disdained to bubble weak parents, by practising the secret tricks of the craft.

In the best regulated schools, however, where swarms are not crammed together many bad habits must be acquired; but, at common schools, the body, heart, and understanding, are equally stunted, for parents are often only in quest of the cheapest school, and the master could not live, if he did not take a much greater number than he could manage himself; nor will the scanty pittance, allowed for each child, permit him to hire ushers sufficient to assist in the discharge of the mechanical part of the business. Besides, whatever appearance the house and garden may make, the children do not enjoy the comforts of either, for they are continually reminded, by irksome restrictions, that they are not at home, and the state-rooms, garden, etc. must be kept in order for the recreation of the parents; who, of a Sunday, visit the school, and are impressed by the very parade that renders the situation of their children uncomfortable.

With what disgust have I heard sensible women, for girls are more restrained and cowed than boys, speak of the wearisome confinement which they endured at school. Not allowed, perhaps, to step out of one broad walk in a superb garden, and obliged to pace with steady deportment stupidly backwards and forwards, holding up their heads, and turning out their toes, with shoulders braced back, instead of bounding, as nature directs to complete her own design, in the various attitudes so conducive to health. The pure animal spirits, which make both mind and body shoot out, and unfold the tender blossoms of hope are turned sour, and vented in vain wishes, or pert repinings, that contract the faculties and spoil the temper; else they mount to the brain and sharpening the understanding before it gains proportionable strength, produce that pitiful cunning which disgracefully characterizes the female mind—and I fear will ever characterize it whilst women remain the slaves of power!

The little respect which the male world pay to chastity is, I am persuaded, the grand source of many of the physical and moral evils that torment mankind, as well as of the vices and follies that degrade and destroy women; yet at school, boys infallibly lose that decent bashfulness, which might have ripened into modesty at home.

I have already animadverted on the bad habits which females acquire when they are shut up together; and I think that the observation may fairly be extended to the other sex, till the natural inference is drawn which I have had in view throughout—that to improve both sexes they ought, not only in private families, but in public schools, to be educated together. If marriage be the cement of society, mankind should all be educated after the same model, or the intercourse of the sexes will never deserve the name of fellowship, nor will women ever fulfil the peculiar duties of their sex, till they become enlightened citizens, till they become free, by being enabled to earn their own subsistence, independent of men; in the same manner, I mean, to prevent misconstruction, as one man is independent of another. Nay, marriage will never be held sacred till women by being brought up with men, are prepared to be their companions, rather than their mistresses; for the mean doublings of cunning will ever render them contemptible, whilst oppression renders them timid. So convinced am I of this truth, that I will venture to predict, that virtue will never prevail in society till the virtues of both sexes are founded on reason; and, till the affection common to both are allowed to gain their due strength by the discharge of mutual duties.

Were boys and girls permitted to pursue the same studies together, those graceful decencies might early be inculcated which produce modesty, without those sexual distinctions that taint the mind. Lessons of politeness, and that formulary of decorum, which treads on the heels of falsehood, would be rendered useless by habitual propriety of behaviour. Not, indeed put on for visiters like the courtly robe of politeness, but the sober effect of cleanliness of mind. Would not this simple elegance of sincerity be a chaste homage paid to domestic affections, far surpassing the meretricious compliments that shine with false lustre in the heartless intercourse of fashionable life? But, till more understanding preponderate in society, there will ever be a want of heart and taste, and the harlot's rouge will supply the place of that celestial suffusion which only virtuous affections can give to the face. Gallantry, and what is called love, may subsist without simplicity of character; but the main pillars of friendship, are respect and confidence—esteem is never founded on it cannot tell what.

A taste for the fine arts requires great cultivation; but not more than a taste for the virtuous affections: and both suppose that enlargement of mind which opens so many sources of mental pleasure. Why do people hurry to noisy scenes and crowded circles? I should answer, because they want activity of mind, because they have not cherished the virtues of the heart. They only, therefore, see and feel in the gross, and continually pine after variety, finding every thing that is simple, insipid.

This argument may be carried further than philosophers are aware of, for if nature destined woman, in particular, for the discharge of domestic duties, she made her susceptible of the attached affections in a great degree. Now women are notoriously fond of pleasure; and naturally must be so, according to my definition, because they cannot enter into the minutiae of domestic taste; lacking judgment the foundation of all taste. For the understanding, in spite of sensual cavillers, reserves to itself the privilege of conveying pure joy to the heart.

With what a languid yawn have I seen an admirable poem thrown down, that a man of true taste returns to, again and again with rapture; and, whilst melody has almost suspended respiration, a lady has asked me where I bought my gown. I have seen also an eye glanced coldly over a most exquisite picture, rest, sparkling with pleasure, on a caricature rudely sketched; and whilst some terrific feature in nature has spread a sublime stillness through my soul, I have been desired to observe the pretty tricks of a lap-dog, that my perverse fate forced me to travel with. Is it surprising, that such a tasteless being should rather caress this dog than her children? Or, that she should prefer the rant of flattery to the simple accents of sincerity?

To illustrate this remark I must be allowed to observe, that men of the first genius, and most cultivated minds, have appeared to have the highest relish for the simple beauties of nature; and they must have forcibly felt, what they have so well described, the charm, which natural affections, and unsophisticated feelings spread round the human character. It is this power of looking into the heart, and responsively vibrating with each emotion, that enables the poet to personify each passion, and the painter to sketch with a pencil of fire.

True taste is ever the work of the understanding employed in observing natural effects; and till women have more understanding, it is vain to expect them to possess domestic taste. Their lively senses will ever be at work to harden their hearts, and the emotions struck out of them will continue to be vivid and transitory, unless a proper education stores their minds with knowledge.

It is the want of domestic taste, and not the acquirement of knowledge, that takes women out of their families, and tears the smiling babe from the breast that ought to afford it nourishment. Women have been allowed to remain in ignorance, and slavish dependence, many, very many years, and still we hear of nothing but their fondness of pleasure and sway, their preference of rakes and soldiers, their childish attachment to toys, and the vanity that makes them value accomplishments more than virtues.

History brings forward a fearful catalogue of the crimes which their cunning has produced, when the weak slaves have had sufficient address to over-reach their masters. In France, and in how many other countries have men been the luxurious despots, and women the crafty ministers? Does this prove that ignorance and dependence domesticate them? Is not their folly the by-word of the libertines, who relax in their society; and do not men of sense continually lament, that an immoderate fondness for dress and dissipation carries the mother of a family for ever from home? Their hearts have not been debauched by knowledge, nor their minds led astray by scientific pursuits; yet, they do not fulfil the peculiar duties, which as women they are called upon by nature to fulfil. On the contrary, the state of warfare which subsists between the sexes, makes them employ those wiles, that frustrate the more open designs of force.

When, therefore, I call women slaves, I mean in a political and civil sense; for, indirectly they obtain too much power, and are debased by their exertions to obtain illicit sway.

Let an enlightened nation then try what effect reason would have to bring them back to nature, and their duty; and allowing them to share the advantages of education and government with man, see whether they will become better, as they grow wiser and become free. They cannot be injured by the experiment; for it is not in the power of man to render them more insignificant than they are at present.

To render this practicable, day schools for particular ages should be established by government, in which boys and girls might be educated together. The school for the younger children, from five to nine years of age, ought to be absolutely free and open to all classes. A sufficient number of masters should also be chosen by a select committee, in each parish, to whom any complaint of negligence, etc. might be made, if signed by six of the children's parents.

Ushers would then be unnecessary; for, I believe, experience will ever prove, that this kind of subordinate authority is particularly injurious to the morals of youth. What, indeed, can tend to deprave the character more than outward submission and inward contempt? Yet, how can boys be expected to treat an usher with respect when the master seems to consider him in the light of a servant, and almost to countenance the ridicule which becomes the chief amusement of the boys during the play hours?

But nothing of this kind could occur in an elementary day-school, where boys and girls, the rich and poor, should meet together. And to prevent any of the distinctions of vanity, they should be dressed alike, and all obliged to submit to the same discipline, or leave the school. The school-room ought to be surrounded by a large piece of ground, in which the children might be usefully exercised, for at this age they should not be confined to any sedentary employment for more than an hour at a time. But these relaxations might all be rendered a part of elementary education, for many things improve and amuse the senses, when introduced as a kind of show, to the principles of which dryly laid down, children would turn a deaf ear. For instance, botany, mechanics, and astronomy. Reading, writing, arithmetic, natural history, and some simple experiments in natural philosophy, might fill up the day; but these pursuits should never encroach on gymnastic plays in the open air. The elements of religion, history, the history of man, and politics, might also be taught by conversations, in the socratic form.

After the age of nine, girls and boys, intended for domestic employments, or mechanical trades, ought to be removed to other schools, and receive instruction, in some measure appropriated to the destination of each individual, the two sexes being still together in the morning; but in the afternoon, the girls should attend a school, where plain work, mantua-making, millinery, etc. would be their employment.

The young people of superior abilities, or fortune, might now be taught, in another school, the dead and living languages, the elements of science, and continue the study of history and politics, on a more extensive scale, which would not exclude polite literature. Girls and boys still together? I hear some readers ask: yes. And I should not fear any other consequence, than that some early attachment might take place; which, whilst it had the best effect on the moral character of the young people, might not perfectly agree with the views of the parents, for it will be a long time, I fear, before the world is so enlightened, that parents, only anxious to render their children virtuous, will let them choose companions for life themselves.

Besides, this would be a sure way to promote early marriages, and from early marriages the most salutary physical and moral effects naturally flow. What a different character does a married citizen assume from the selfish coxcomb, who lives but for himself, and who is often afraid to marry lest he should not be able to live in a certain style. Great emergencies excepted, which would rarely occur in a society of which equality was the basis, a man could only be prepared to discharge the duties of public life, by the habitual practice of those inferior ones which form the man.

In this plan of education, the constitution of boys would not be ruined by the early debaucheries, which now make men so selfish, nor girls rendered weak and vain, by indolence and frivolous pursuits. But, I presuppose, that such a degree of equality should be established between the sexes as would shut out gallantry and coquetry, yet allow friendship and love to temper the heart for the discharge of higher duties.

These would be schools of morality—and the happiness of man, allowed to flow from the pure springs of duty and affection, what advances might not the human mind make? Society can only be happy and free in proportion as it is virtuous; but the present distinctions, established in society, corrode all private, and blast all public virtue.

I have already inveighed against the custom of confining girls to their needle, and shutting them out from all political and civil employments; for by thus narrowing their minds they are rendered unfit to fulfil the peculiar duties which nature has assigned them.

Only employed about the little incidents of the day, they necessarily grow up cunning. My very soul has often sickened at observing the sly tricks practised by women to gain some foolish thing on which their silly hearts were set. Not allowed to dispose of money, or call any thing their own, they learn to turn the market penny; or, should a husband offend, by staying from home, or give rise to some emotions of jealousy—a new gown, or any pretty bauble, smooths Juno's angry brow.

But these LITTLENESSES would not degrade their character, if women were led to respect themselves, if political and moral subjects were opened to them; and I will venture to affirm, that this is the only way to make them properly attentive to their domestic duties. An active mind embraces the whole circle of its duties, and finds time enough for all. It is not, I assert, a bold attempt to emulate masculine virtues; it is not the enchantment of literary pursuits, or the steady investigation of scientific subjects, that lead women astray from duty. No, it is indolence and vanity —the love of pleasure and the love of sway, that will reign paramount in an empty mind. I say empty, emphatically, because the education which women now receive scarcely deserves the name. For the little knowledge they are led to acquire during the important years of youth, is merely relative to accomplishments; and accomplishments without a bottom, for unless the understanding be cultivated, superficial and monotonous is every grace. Like the charms of a made-up face, they only strike the senses in a crowd; but at home, wanting mind, they want variety. The consequence is obvious; in gay scenes of dissipation we meet the artificial mind and face, for those who fly from solitude dread next to solitude, the domestic circle; not having it in their power to amuse or interest, they feel their own insignificance, or find nothing to amuse or interest themselves.

Besides, what can be more indelicate than a girl's coming out in the fashionable world? Which, in other words, is to bring to market a marriageable miss, whose person is taken from one public place to another, richly caparisoned. Yet, mixing in the giddy circle under restraint, these butterflies long to flutter at large, for the first affection of their souls is their own persons, to which their attention has been called with the most sedulous care, whilst they were preparing for the period that decides their fate for life. Instead of pursuing this idle routine, sighing for tasteless show, and heartless state, with what dignity would the youths of both sexes form attachments in the schools that I have cursorily pointed out; in which, as life advanced, dancing, music, and drawing, might be admitted as relaxations, for at these schools young people of fortune ought to remain, more or less, till they were of age. Those, who were designed for particular professions, might attend, three or four mornings in the week, the schools appropriated for their immediate instruction.

I only drop these observations at present, as hints; rather, indeed as an outline of the plan I mean, than a digested one; but I must add, that I highly approve of one regulation mentioned in the pamphlet already alluded to (The Bishop of Autun), that of making the children and youths independent of the masters respecting punishments. They should be tried by their peers, which would be an admirable method of fixing sound principles of justice in the mind, and might have the happiest effect on the temper, which is very early soured or irritated by tyranny, till it becomes peevishly cunning, or ferociously overbearing.

My imagination darts forward with benevolent fervour to greet these amiable and respectable groups, in spite of the sneering of cold hearts, who are at liberty to utter, with frigid self-importance, the damning epithet— romantic; the force of which I shall endeavour to blunt by repeating the words of an eloquent moralist. "I know not whether the allusions of a truly humane heart, whose zeal renders every thing easy, is not preferable to that rough and repulsing reason, which always finds in indifference for the public good, the first obstacle to whatever would promote it."

I know that libertines will also exclaim, that woman would be unsexed by acquiring strength of body and mind, and that beauty, soft bewitching beauty! would no longer adorn the daughters of men. I am of a very different opinion, for I think, that, on the contrary, we should then see dignified beauty, and true grace; to produce which, many powerful physical and moral causes would concur. Not relaxed beauty, it is true, nor the graces of helplessness; but such as appears to make us respect the human body as a majestic pile, fit to receive a noble inhabitant, in the relics of antiquity.

I do not forget the popular opinion, that the Grecian statues were not modelled after nature. I mean, not according to the proportions of a particular man; but that beautiful limbs and features were selected from various bodies to form an harmonious whole. This might, in some degree, be true. The fine ideal picture of an exalted imagination might be superior to the materials which the painter found in nature, and thus it might with propriety be termed rather the model of mankind than of a man. It was not, however, the mechanical selection of limbs and features, but the ebullition of an heated fancy that burst forth; and the fine senses and enlarged understanding of the artist selected the solid matter, which he drew into this glowing focus.

I observed that it was not mechanical, because a whole was produced—a model of that grand simplicity, of those concurring energies, which arrest our attention and command our reverence. For only insipid lifeless beauty is produced by a servile copy of even beautiful nature. Yet, independent of these observations, I believe, that the human form must have been far more beautiful than it is at present, because extreme indolence, barbarous ligatures, and many causes, which forcibly act on it, in our luxurious state of society, did not retard its expansion, or render it deformed. Exercise and cleanliness appear to be not only the surest means of preserving health, but of promoting beauty, the physical causes only considered; yet, this is not sufficient, moral ones must concur, or beauty will be merely of that rustic kind which blooms on the innocent, wholesome countenances of some country people, whose minds have not been exercised. To render the person perfect, physical and moral beauty ought to be attained at the same time; each lending and receiving force by the combination. Judgment must reside on the brow, affection and fancy beam in the eye, and humanity curve the cheek, or vain is the sparkling of the finest eye or the elegantly turned finish of the fairest features; whilst in every motion that displays the active limbs and well-knit joints, grace and modesty should appear. But this fair assemblage is not to be brought together by chance; it is the reward of exertions met to support each other; for judgment can only be acquired by reflection, affection, by the discharge of duties, and humanity by the exercise of compassion to every living creature.

Humanity to animals should be particularly inculcated as a part of national education, for it is not at present one of our national virtues. Tenderness for their humble dumb domestics, amongst the lower class, is oftener to be found in a savage than a civilized state. For civilization prevents that intercourse which creates affection in the rude hut, or mud cabin, and leads uncultivated minds who are only depraved by the refinements which prevail in the society, where they are trodden under foot by the rich, to domineer over them to revenge the insults that they are obliged to bear from their superiours.

This habitual cruelty is first caught at school, where it is one of the rare sports of the boys to torment the miserable brutes that fall in their way. The transition, as they grow up, from barbarity to brutes to domestic tyranny over wives, children, and servants, is very easy. Justice, or even benevolence, will not be a powerful spring of action, unless it extend to the whole creation; nay, I believe that it may be delivered as an axiom, that those who can see pain, unmoved, will soon learn to inflict it.

The vulgar are swayed by present feelings, and the habits which they have accidentally acquired; but on partial feelings much dependence cannot be placed, though they be just; for, when they are not invigorated by reflection, custom weakens them, till they are scarcely felt. The sympathies of our nature are strengthened by pondering cogitations, and deadened by thoughtless use. Macbeth's heart smote him more for one murder, the first, than for a hundred subsequent ones, which were necessary to back it. But, when I used the epithet vulgar, I did not mean to confine my remark to the poor, for partial humanity, founded on present sensations or whim, is quite as conspicuous, if not more so, amongst the rich.

The lady who sheds tears for the bird starved in a snare, and execrates the devils in the shape of men, who goad to madness the poor ox, or whip the patient ass, tottering under a burden above its strength, will, nevertheless, keep her coachman and horses whole hours waiting for her, when the sharp frost bites, or the rain beats against the well-closed windows which do not admit a breath of air to tell her how roughly the wind blows without. And she who takes her dogs to bed, and nurses them with a parade of sensibility, when sick, will suffer her babes to grow up crooked in a nursery. This illustration of my argument is drawn from a matter of fact. The woman whom I allude to was handsome, reckoned very handsome, by those who do not miss the mind when the face is plump and fair; but her understanding had not been led from female duties by literature, nor her innocence debauched by knowledge. No, she was quite feminine, according to the masculine acceptation of the word; and, so far from loving these spoiled brutes that filled the place which her children ought to have occupied, she only lisped out a pretty mixture of French and English nonsense, to please the men who flocked round her. The wife, mother, and human creature, were all swallowed up by the factitious character, which an improper education, and the selfish vanity of beauty, had produced.

I do not like to make a distinction without a difference, and I own that I have been as much disgusted by the fine lady who took her lap-dog to her bosom, instead of her child; as by the ferocity of a man, who, beating his horse, declared, that he knew as well when he did wrong as a Christian.

This brood of folly shows how mistaken they are who, if they allow women to leave their harams, do not cultivate their understanding, in order to plant virtues in their hearts. For had they sense, they might acquire that domestic taste which would lead them to love with reasonable subordination their whole family, from the husband to the house-dog; nor would they ever insult humanity in the person of the most menial servant, by paying more attention to the comfort of a brute, than to that of a fellow-creature.

My observations on national education are obviously hints; but I principally wish to enforce the necessity of educating the sexes together to perfect both, and of making children sleep at home, that they may learn to love home; yet to make private support instead of smothering public affections, they should be sent to school to mix with a number of equals, for only by the jostlings of equality can we form a just opinion of ourselves.

To render mankind more virtuous, and happier of course, both sexes must act from the same principle; but how can that be expected when only one is allowed to see the reasonableness of it? To render also the social compact truly equitable, and in order to spread those enlightening principles, which alone can meliorate the fate of man, women must be allowed to found their virtue on knowledge, which is scarcely possible unless they be educated by the same pursuits as men. For they are now made so inferiour by ignorance and low desires, as not to deserve to be ranked with them; or, by the serpentine wrigglings of cunning they mount the tree of knowledge and only acquire sufficient to lead men astray.

It is plain from the history of all nations, that women cannot be confined to merely domestic pursuits, for they will not fulfil family duties, unless their minds take a wider range, and whilst they are kept in ignorance, they become in the same proportion, the slaves of pleasure as they are the slaves of man. Nor can they be shut out of great enterprises, though the narrowness of their minds often make them mar what they are unable to comprehend.

The libertinism, and even the virtues of superior men, will always give women, of some description, great power over them; and these weak women, under the influence of childish passions and selfish vanity, will throw a false light over the objects which the very men view with their eyes, who ought to enlighten their judgment. Men of fancy, and those sanguine characters who mostly hold the helm of human affairs, in general, relax in the society of women; and surely I need not cite to the most superficial reader of history, the numerous examples of vice and oppression which the private intrigues of female favourites have produced; not to dwell on the mischief that naturally arises from the blundering interposition of well-meaning folly. For in the transactions of business it is much better to have to deal with a knave than a fool, because a knave adheres to some plan; and any plan of reason may be seen through much sooner than a sudden flight of folly. The power which vile and foolish women have had over wise men, who possessed sensibility, is notorious; I shall only mention one instance.

Whoever drew a more exalted female character than Rousseau? though in the lump he constantly endeavoured to degrade the sex. And why was he thus anxious? Truly to justify to himself the affection which weakness and virtue had made him cherish for that fool Theresa. He could not raise her to the common level of her sex; and therefore he laboured to bring woman down to her's. He found her a convenient humble companion, and pride made him determine to find some superior virtues in the being whom he chose to live with; but did not her conduct during his life, and after his death, clearly show how grossly he was mistaken who called her a celestial innocent. Nay, in the bitterness of his heart, he himself laments, that when his bodily infirmities made him no longer treat her like a woman, she ceased to have an affection for him. And it was very natural that she should, for having so few sentiments in common, when the sexual tie was broken, what was to hold her? To hold her affection whose sensibility was confined to one sex, nay, to one man, it requires sense to turn sensibility into the broad channel of humanity: many women have not mind enough to have an affection for a woman, or a friendship for a man. But the sexual weakness that makes woman depend on man for a subsistence, produces a kind of cattish affection, which leads a wife to purr about her husband, as she would about any man who fed and caressed her.

Men, are however, often gratified by this kind of fondness which is confined in a beastly manner to themselves, but should they ever become more virtuous, they will wish to converse at their fire-side with a friend, after they cease to play with a mistress. Besides, understanding is necessary to give variety and interest to sensual enjoyments, for low, indeed, in the intellectual scale, is the mind that can continue to love when neither virtue nor sense give a human appearance to an animal appetite. But sense will always preponderate; and if women are not, in general, brought more on a level with men, some superior women, like the Greek courtezans will assemble the men of abilities around them, and draw from their families many citizens, who would have stayed at home, had their wives had more sense, or the graces which result from the exercise of the understanding and fancy, the legitimate parents of taste. A woman of talents, if she be not absolutely ugly, will always obtain great power, raised by the weakness of her sex; and in proportion as men acquire virtue and delicacy: by the exertion of reason, they will look for both in women, but they can only acquire them in the same way that men do.

In France or Italy have the women confined themselves to domestic life? though they have not hitherto had a political existence, yet, have they not illicitly had great sway? corrupting themselves and the men with whose passions they played? In short, in whatever light I view the subject, reason and experience convince me, that the only method of leading women to fulfil their peculiar duties, is to free them from all restraint by allowing them to participate the inherent rights of mankind.

Make them free, and they will quickly become wise and virtuous, as men become more so; for the improvement must be mutual, or the justice which one half of the human race are obliged to submit to, retorting on their oppressors, the virtue of man will be worm-eaten by the insect whom he keeps under his feet.

Let men take their choice, man and woman were made for each other, though not to become one being; and if they will not improve women, they will deprave them!

I speak of the improvement and emancipation of the whole sex, for I know that the behaviour of a few women, who by accident, or following a strong bent of nature, have acquired a portion of knowledge superior to that of the rest of their sex, has often been over-bearing; but there have been instances of women who, attaining knowledge, have not discarded modesty, nor have they always pedantically appeared to despise the ignorance which they laboured to disperse in their own minds. The exclamations then which any advice respecting female learning, commonly produces, especially from pretty women, often arise from envy. When they chance to see that even the lustre of their eyes, and the flippant sportiveness of refined coquetry will not always secure them attention, during a whole evening, should a woman of a more cultivated understanding endeavour to give a rational turn to the conversation, the common source of consolation is, that such women seldom get husbands. What arts have I not seen silly women use to interrupt by FLIRTATION, (a very significant word to describe such a manoeuvre) a rational conversation, which made the men forget that they were pretty women.

But, allowing what is very natural to man—that the possession of rare abilities is really calculated to excite over-weening pride, disgusting in both men and women—in what a state of inferiority must the female faculties have rusted when such a small portion of knowledge as those women attained, who have sneeringly been termed learned women, could be singular? Sufficiently so to puff up the possessor, and excite envy in her contemporaries, and some of the other sex. Nay, has not a little rationality exposed many women to the severest censure? I advert to well known-facts, for I have frequently heard women ridiculed, and every little weakness exposed, only because they adopted the advice of some medical men, and deviated from the beaten track in their mode of treating their infants. I have actually heard this barbarous aversion to innovation carried still further, and a sensible woman stigmatized as an unnatural mother, who has thus been wisely solicitous to preserve the health of her children, when in the midst of her care she has lost one by some of the casualties of infancy which no prudence can ward off. Her acquaintance have observed, that this was the consequence of new-fangled notions—the new-fangled notions of ease and cleanliness. And those who, pretending to experience, though they have long adhered to prejudices that have, according to the opinion of the most sagacious physicians, thinned the human race, almost rejoiced at the disaster that gave a kind of sanction to prescription.

Indeed, if it were only on this account, the national education of women is of the utmost consequence; for what a number of human sacrifices are made to that moloch, prejudice! And in how many ways are children destroyed by the lasciviousness of man? The want of natural affection in many women, who are drawn from their duty by the admiration of men, and the ignorance of others, render the infancy of man a much more perilous state than that of brutes; yet men are unwilling to place women in situations proper to enable them to acquire sufficient understanding to know how even to nurse their babes.

So forcibly does this truth strike me, that I would rest the whole tendency of my reasoning upon it; for whatever tends to incapacitate the maternal character, takes woman out of her sphere.

But it is vain to expect the present race of weak mothers either to take that reasonable care of a child's body, which is necessary to lay the foundation of a good constitution, supposing that it do not suffer for the sins of its fathers; or to manage its temper so judiciously that the child will not have, as it grows up, to throw off all that its mother, its first instructor, directly or indirectly taught, and unless the mind have uncommon vigour, womanish follies will stick to the character throughout life. The weakness of the mother will be visited on the children! And whilst women are educated to rely on their husbands for judgment, this must ever be the consequence, for there is no improving an understanding by halves, nor can any being act wisely from imitation, because in every circumstance of life there is a kind of individuality, which requires an exertion of judgment to modify general rules. The being who can think justly in one track, will soon extend its intellectual empire; and she who has sufficient judgment to manage her children, will not submit right or wrong, to her husband, or patiently to the social laws which makes a nonentity of a wife.

In public schools women, to guard against the errors of ignorance, should be taught the elements of anatomy and medicine, not only to enable them to take proper care of their own health, but to make them rational nurses of their infants, parents, and husbands; for the bills of mortality are swelled by the blunders of self-willed old women, who give nostrums of their own, without knowing any thing of the human frame. It is likewise proper, only in a domestic view, to make women, acquainted with the anatomy of the mind, by allowing the sexes to associate together in every pursuit; and by leading them to observe the progress of the human understanding in the improvement of the sciences and arts; never forgetting the science of morality, nor the study of the political history of mankind.

A man has been termed a microcosm; and every family might also be called a state. States, it is true, have mostly been governed by arts that disgrace the character of man; and the want of a just constitution, and equal laws, have so perplexed the notions of the worldly wise, that they more than question the reasonableness of contending for the rights of humanity. Thus morality, polluted in the national reservoir, sends off streams of vice to corrupt the constituent parts of the body politic; but should more noble, or rather more just principles regulate the laws, which ought to be the government of society, and not those who execute them, duty might become the rule of private conduct.

Besides, by the exercise of their bodies and minds, women would acquire that mental activity so necessary in the maternal character, united with the fortitude that distinguishes steadiness of conduct from the obstinate perverseness of weakness. For it is dangerous to advise the indolent to be steady, because they instantly become rigorous, and to save themselves trouble, punish with severity faults that the patient fortitude of reason might have prevented.

But fortitude presupposes strength of mind, and is strength of mind to be acquired by indolent acquiescence? By asking advice instead of exerting the judgment? By obeying through fear, instead of practising the forbearance, which we all stand in need of ourselves? The conclusion which I wish to draw is obvious; make women rational creatures and free citizens, and they will quickly become good wives, and mothers; that is—if men do not neglect the duties of husbands and fathers.

Discussing the advantages which a public and private education combined, as I have sketched, might rationally be expected to produce, I have dwelt most on such as are particularly relative to the female world, because I think the female world oppressed; yet the gangrene which the vices, engendered by oppression have produced, is not confined to the morbid part, but pervades society at large; so that when I wish to see my sex become more like moral agents, my heart bounds with the anticipation of the general diffusion of that sublime contentment which only morality can diffuse.

本书由“ePUBw.COM”整理，ePUBw.COM 提供最新最全的优质电子书下载！！！

CHAPTER 13.SOME INSTANCES OF THE FOLLY WHICH THE IGNORANCE OF WOMEN GENERATES; WITH CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS ON THE MORAL IMPROVEMENT THAT A REVOLUTION IN FEMALE MANNERS MIGHT NATURALLY BE EXPECTED TO PRODUCE.

There are many follies, in some degree, peculiar to women: sins against reason, of commission, as well as of omission; but all flowing from ignorance or prejudice, I shall only point out such as appear to be injurious to their moral character. And in animadverting on them, I wish especially to prove, that the weakness of mind and body, which men have endeavoured by various motives to perpetuate, prevents their discharging the peculiar duty of their sex: for when weakness of body will not permit them to suckle their children, and weakness of mind makes them spoil their tempers—is woman in a natural state?

SECTION 13.1.

One glaring instance of the weakness which proceeds from ignorance, first claims attention, and calls for severe reproof.

In this metropolis a number of lurking leeches infamously gain a subsistence by practising on the credulity of women, pretending to cast nativities, to use the technical phrase; and many females who, proud of their rank and fortune, look down on the vulgar with sovereign contempt, show by this credulity, that the distinction is arbitrary, and that they have not sufficiently cultivated their minds to rise above vulgar prejudices. Women, because they have not been led to consider the knowledge of their duty as the one thing necessary to know, or, to live in the present moment by the discharge of it, are very anxious to peep into futurity, to learn what they have to expect to render life interesting, and to break the vacuum of ignorance. I must be allowed to expostulate seriously with the ladies, who follow these idle inventions; for ladies, mistresses of families, are not ashamed to drive in their own carriages to the door of the cunning man. And if any of them should peruse this work, I entreat them to answer to their own hearts the following questions, not forgetting that they are in the presence of God.

Do you believe that there is but one God, and that he is powerful, wise, and good?

Do you believe that all things were created by him, and that all beings are dependent on him?

Do you rely on his wisdom, so conspicuous in his works, and in your own frame, and are you convinced, that he has ordered all things which do not come under the cognizance of your senses, in the same perfect harmony, to fulfil his designs?

Do you acknowledge that the power of looking into futurity and seeing things that are not, as if they were, is an attribute of the Creator? And should he, by an impression on the minds of his creatures, think fit to impart to them some event hid in the shades of time, yet unborn, to whom would the secret be revealed by immediate inspiration? The opinion of ages will answer this question—to reverend old men, to people distinguished for eminent piety.

The oracles of old were thus delivered by priests dedicated to the service of the God, who was supposed to inspire them. The glare of worldly pomp which surrounded these impostors, and the respect paid to them by artful politicians, who knew how to avail themselves of this useful engine to bend the necks of the strong under the dominion of the cunning, spread a sacred mysterious veil of sanctity over their lies and abominations. Impressed by such solemn devotional parade, a Greek or Roman lady might be excused, if she inquired of the oracle, when she was anxious to pry into futurity, or inquire about some dubious event: and her inquiries, however contrary to reason, could not be reckoned impious. But, can the professors of Christianity ward off that imputation? Can a Christian suppose, that the favourites of the most High, the highly favoured would be obliged to lurk in disguise, and practise the most dishonest tricks to cheat silly women out of the money, which the poor cry for in vain?

Say not that such questions are an insult to common sense for it is your own conduct, O ye foolish women! which throws an odium on your sex! And these reflections should make you shudder at your thoughtlessness, and irrational devotion, for I do not suppose that all of you laid aside your religion, such as it is, when you entered those mysterious dwellings. Yet, as I have throughout supposed myself talking to ignorant women, for ignorant ye are in the most emphatical sense of the word, it would be absurd to reason with you on the egregious folly of desiring to know what the Supreme Wisdom has concealed.

Probably you would not understand me, were I to attempt to show you that it would be absolutely inconsistent with the grand purpose of life, that of rendering human creatures wise and virtuous: and that, were it sanctioned by God, it would disturb the order established in creation; and if it be not sanctioned by God, do you expect to hear truth? Can events be foretold, events which have not yet assumed a body to become subject to mortal inspection, can they be foreseen by a vicious worldling, who pampers his appetites by preying on the foolish ones?

Perhaps, however, you devoutly believe in the devil, and imagine, to shift the question, that he may assist his votaries? but if really respecting the power of such a being, an enemy to goodness and to God, can you go to church after having been under such an obligation to him. From these delusions to those still more fashionable deceptions, practised by the whole tribe of magnetisers, the transition is very natural. With respect to them, it is equally proper to ask women a few questions.

Do you know any thing of the construction of the human frame? If not, it is proper that you should be told, what every child ought to know, that when its admirable economy has been disturbed by intemperance or indolence, I speak not of violent disorders, but of chronical diseases, it must be brought into a healthy state again by slow degrees, and if the functions of life have not been materially injured, regimen, another word for temperance, air, exercise, and a few medicines prescribed by persons who have studied the human body, are the only human means, yet discovered, of recovering that inestimable blessing health, that will bear investigation.

Do you then believe, that these magnetisers, who, by hocus pocus tricks, pretend, to work a miracle, are delegated by God, or assisted by the solver of all these kind of difficulties—the devil.

Do they, when they put to flight, as it is said, disorders that have baffled the powers of medicine, work in conformity to the light of reason? Or do they effect these wonderful cures by supernatural aid?

By a communication, an adept may answer, with the world of spirits. A noble privilege, it must be allowed. Some of the ancients mention familiar demons, who guarded them from danger, by kindly intimating (we cannot guess in what manner,) when any danger was nigh; or pointed out what they ought to undertake. Yet the men who laid claim to this privilege, out of the order of nature, insisted, that it was the reward or consequence of superior temperance and piety. But the present workers of wonders are not raised above their fellows by superior temperance or sanctity. They do not cure for the love of God, but money. These are the priests of quackery, though it be true they have not the convenient expedient of selling masses for souls in purgatory, nor churches, where they can display crutches, and models of limbs made sound by a touch or a word.

I am not conversant with the technical terms, nor initiated into the arcana, therefore I may speak improperly; but it is clear, that men who will not conform to the law of reason, and earn a subsistence in an honest way, by degrees, are very fortunate in becoming acquainted with such obliging spirits. We cannot, indeed, give them credit for either great sagacity or goodness, else they would have chosen more noble instruments, when they wished to show themselves the benevolent friends of man.

It is, however, little short of blasphemy to pretend to such power.

>From the whole tenor of the dispensations of Providence, it appears evident to sober reason, that certain vices produce certain effects: and can any one so grossly insult the wisdom of God, as to suppose, that a miracle will be allowed to disturb his general laws, to restore to health the intemperate and vicious, merely to enable them to pursue the same course with impunity? Be whole, and sin no more, said Jesus. And are greater miracles to be performed by those who do not follow his footsteps, who healed the body to reach the mind?

The mentioning of the name of Christ, after such vile impostors may displease some of my readers—I respect their warmth; but let them not forget, that the followers of these delusions bear his name, and profess to be the disciples of him, who said, by their works we should know who were the children of God or the servants of sin. I allow that it is easier to touch the body of a saint, or to be magnetised, than to restrain our appetites or govern our passions; but health of body or mind can only be recovered by these means, or we make the Supreme Judge partial and revengeful.

Is he a man, that he should change, or punish out of resentment? He—the common father, wounds but to heal, says reason, and our irregularities producing certain consequences, we are forcibly shown the nature of vice; that thus learning to know good from evil, by experience, we may hate one and love the other, in proportion to the wisdom which we attain. The poison contains the antidote; and we either reform our evil habits, and cease to sin against our own bodies, to use the forcible language of scripture, or a premature death, the punishment of sin, snaps the thread of life.

Here an awful stop is put to our inquiries. But, why should I conceal my sentiments? Considering the attributes of God, I believe, that whatever punishment may follow, will tend, like the anguish of disease, to show the malignity of vice, for the purpose of reformation. Positive punishment appears so contrary to the nature of God, discoverable in all his works, and in our own reason, that I could sooner believe that the Deity paid no attention to the conduct of men, than that he punished without the benevolent design of reforming.

To suppose only, that an all-wise and powerful Being, as good as he is great, should create a being, foreseeing, that after fifty or sixty years of feverish existence, it would be plunged into never ending woe—is blasphemy. On what will the worm feed that is never to die? On folly, on ignorance, say ye—I should blush indignantly at drawing the natural conclusion, could I insert it, and wish to withdraw myself from the wing of my God! On such a supposition, I speak with reverence, he would be a consuming fire. We should wish, though vainly, to fly from his presence when fear absorbed love, and darkness involved all his counsels.

I know that many devout people boast of submitting to the Will of God blindly, as to an arbitrary sceptre or rod, on the same principle as the Indians worship the devil. In other words, like people in the common concerns of life, they do homage to power, and cringe under the foot that can crush them. Rational religion, on the contrary, is a submission to the will of a being so perfectly wise, that all he wills must be directed by the proper motive—must be reasonable.

And, if thus we respect God, can we give credit to the mysterious insinuations which insult his laws? Can we believe, though it should stare us in the face, that he would work a miracle to authorize confusion by sanctioning an error? Yet we must either allow these impious conclusions, or treat with contempt every promise to restore health to a diseased body by supernatural means, or to foretell, the incidents that can only be foreseen by God.

SECTION 13.2.

Another instance of that feminine weakness of character, often produced by a confined education, is a romantic twist of the mind, which has been very properly termed SENTIMENTAL.

Women, subjected by ignorance to their sensations, and only taught to look for happiness in love, refine on sensual feelings, and adopt metaphysical notions respecting that passion, which lead them shamefully to neglect the duties of life, and frequently in the midst of these sublime refinements they plunge into actual vice.

These are the women who are amused by the reveries of the stupid novelists, who, knowing little of human nature, work up stale tales, and describe meretricious scenes, all retailed in a sentimental jargon, which equally tend to corrupt the taste, and draw the heart aside from its daily duties. I do not mention the understanding, because never having been exercised, its slumbering energies rest inactive, like the lurking particles of fire which are supposed universally to pervade matter.

Females, in fact, denied all political privileges, and not allowed, as married women, excepting in criminal cases, a civil existence, have their attention naturally drawn from the interest of the whole community to that of the minute parts, though the private duty of any member of society must be very imperfectly performed, when not connected with the general good. The mighty business of female life is to please, and, restrained from entering into more important concerns by political and civil oppression, sentiments become events, and reflection deepens what it should, and would have effaced, if the understanding had been allowed to take a wider range.

But, confined to trifling employments, they naturally imbibe opinions which the only kind of reading calculated to interest an innocent frivolous mind, inspires. Unable to grasp any thing great, is it surprising that they find the reading of history a very dry task, and disquisitions addressed to the understanding, intolerably tedious, and almost unintelligible? Thus are they necessarily dependent on the novelist for amusement. Yet, when I exclaim against novels, I mean when contrasted with those works which exercise the understanding and regulate the imagination. For any kind of reading I think better than leaving a blank still a blank, because the mind must receive a degree of enlargement, and obtain a little strength by a slight exertion of its thinking powers; besides, even the productions that are only addressed to the imagination, raise the reader a little above the gross gratification of appetites, to which the mind has not given a shade of delicacy.

This observation is the result of experience; for I have known several notable women, and one in particular, who was a very good woman—as good as such a narrow mind would allow her to be, who took care that her daughters (three in number) should never see a novel. As she was a woman of fortune and fashion, they had various masters to attend them, and a sort of menial governess to watch their footsteps. From their masters they learned how tables, chairs, etc. were called in French and Italian; but as the few books thrown in their way were far above their capacities, or devotional, they neither acquired ideas nor sentiments, and passed their time, when not compelled to repeat WORDS, in dressing, quarrelling with each other, or conversing with their maids by stealth, till they were brought into company as marriageable.

Their mother, a widow, was busy in the mean time in keeping up her connexions, as she termed a numerous acquaintance lest her girls should want a proper introduction into the great world. And these young ladies, with minds vulgar in every sense of the word, and spoiled tempers, entered life puffed up with notions of their own consequence, and looking down with contempt on those who could not vie with them in dress and parade.

With respect to love, nature, or their nurses, had taken care to teach them the physical meaning of the word; and, as they had few topics of conversation, and fewer refinements of sentiment, they expressed their gross wishes not in very delicate phrases, when they spoke freely, talking of matrimony.

Could these girls have been injured by the perusal of novels? I almost forgot a shade in the character of one of them; she affected a simplicity bordering on folly, and with a simper would utter the most immodest remarks and questions, the full meaning of which she had learned whilst secluded from the world, and afraid to speak in her mother's presence, who governed with a high hand; they were all educated, as she prided herself, in a most exemplary manner; and read their chapters and psalms before breakfast, never touching a silly novel.

This is only one instance; but I recollect many other women who, not led by degrees to proper studies, and not permitted to choose for themselves, have indeed been overgrown children; or have obtained, by mixing in the world, a little of what is termed common sense; that is, a distinct manner of seeing common occurrences, as they stand detached: but what deserves the name of intellect, the power of gaining general or abstract ideas, or even intermediate ones, was out of the question. Their minds were quiescent, and when they were not roused by sensible objects and employments of that kind, they were low-spirited, would cry, or go to sleep.

When, therefore, I advise my sex not to read such flimsy works, it is to induce them to read something superior; for I coincide in opinion with a sagacious man, who, having a daughter and niece under his care, pursued a very different plan with each.

The niece, who had considerable abilities, had, before she was left to his guardianship, been indulged in desultory reading. Her he endeavoured to lead, and did lead, to history and moral essays; but his daughter whom a fond weak mother had indulged, and who consequently was averse to every thing like application, he allowed to read novels; and used to justify his conduct by saying, that if she ever attained a relish for reading them, he should have some foundation to work upon; and that erroneous opinions were better than none at all.

In fact, the female mind has been so totally neglected, that knowledge was only to be acquired from this muddy source, till from reading novels some women of superior talents learned to despise them.

The best method, I believe, that can be adopted to correct a fondness for novels is to ridicule them; not indiscriminately, for then it would have little effect; but, if a judicious person, with some turn for humour, would read several to a young girl, and point out, both by tones and apt comparisons with pathetic incidents and heroic characters in history, how foolishly and ridiculously they caricatured human nature, just opinions might be substituted instead of romantic sentiments.

In one respect, however, the majority of both sexes resemble, and equally show a want of taste and modesty. Ignorant women, forced to be chaste to preserve their reputation, allow their imagination to revel in the unnatural and meretricious scenes sketched by the novel writers of the day, slighting as insipid the sober dignity and matronly grace of history, whilst men carry the same vitiated taste into life, and fly for amusement to the wanton, from the unsophisticated charms of virtue, and the grave respectability of sense.

Besides, the reading of novels makes women, and particularly ladies of fashion, very fond of using strong expressions and superlatives in conversation; and, though the dissipated artificial life which they lead prevents their cherishing any strong legitimate passion, the language of passion in affected tones slips for ever from their glib tongues, and every trifle produces those phosphoric bursts which only mimick in the dark the flame of passion.

SECTION 13.3.

Ignorance and the mistaken cunning that nature sharpens in weak heads, as a principle of self-preservation, render women very fond of dress, and produce all the vanity which such a fondness may naturally be expected to generate, to the exclusion of emulation and magnanimity.

I agree with Rousseau, that the physical part of the art of pleasing consists in ornaments, and for that very reason I should guard girls against the contagious fondness for dress so common to weak women, that they may not rest in the physical part. Yet, weak are the women who imagine that they can long please without the aid of the mind; or, in other words, without the moral art of pleasing. But the moral art, if it be not a profanation to use the word art, when alluding to the grace which is an effect of virtue, and not the motive of action, is never to be found with ignorance; the sportiveness of innocence, so pleasing to refined libertines of both sexes, is widely different in its essence from this superior gracefulness.

A strong inclination for external ornaments ever appears in barbarous states, only the men not the women adorn themselves; for where women are allowed to be so far on a level with men, society has advanced at least one step in civilization.

The attention to dress, therefore, which has been thought a sexual propensity, I think natural to mankind. But I ought to express myself with more precision. When the mind is not sufficiently opened to take pleasure in reflection, the body will be adorned with sedulous care; and ambition will appear in tattooing or painting it.

So far is the first inclination carried, that even the hellish yoke of slavery cannot stifle the savage desire of admiration which the black heroes inherit from both their parents, for all the hardly-earned savings of a slave are commonly expended in a little tawdry finery. And I have seldom known a good male or female servant that was not particularly fond of dress. Their clothes were their riches; and I argue from analogy, that the fondness for dress, so extravagant in females, arises from the same cause—want of cultivation of mind. When men meet they converse about business, politics, or literature; but, says Swift, "how naturally do women apply their hands to each others lappets and ruffles." And very natural it is—for they have not any business to interest them, have not a taste for literature, and they find politics dry, because they have not acquired a love for mankind by turning their thoughts to the grand pursuits that exalt the human race and promote general happiness.

Besides, various are the paths to power and fame, which by accident or choice men pursue, and though they jostle against each other, for men of the same profession are seldom friends, yet there is a much greater number of their fellow-creatures with whom they never clash. But women are very differently situated with respect to each other—for they are all rivals.

Before marriage it is their business to please men; and after, with a few exceptions, they follow the same scent, with all the persevering pertinacity of instinct. Even virtuous women never forget their sex in company, for they are for ever trying to make themselves AGREEABLE. A female beauty and a male wit, appear to be equally anxious to draw the attention of the company to themselves; and the animosity of contemporary wits is proverbial.

Is it then surprising, that when the sole ambition of woman centres in beauty, and interest gives vanity additional force, perpetual rivalships should ensue? They are all running the same race, and would rise above the virtue of mortals if they did not view each other with a suspicious and even envious eye.

An immoderate fondness for dress, for pleasure and for sway, are the passions of savages; the passions that occupy those uncivilized beings who have not yet extended the dominion of the mind, or even learned to think with the energy necessary to concatenate that abstract train of thought which produces principles. And that women, from their education and the present state of civilized life, are in the same condition, cannot, I think, be controverted. To laugh at them then, or satirize the follies of a being who is never to be allowed to act freely from the light of her own reason, is as absurd as cruel; for that they who are taught blindly to obey authority, will endeavour cunningly to elude it, is most natural and certain.

Yet let it be proved, that they ought to obey man implicitly, and I shall immediately agree that it is woman's duty to cultivate a fondness for dress, in order to please, and a propensity to cunning for her own preservation.

The virtues, however, which are supported by ignorance, must ever be wavering—the house built on sand could not endure a storm. It is almost unnecessary to draw the inference. If women are to be made virtuous by authority, which is a contradiction in terms, let them be immured in seraglios and watched with a jealous eye. Fear not that the iron will enter into their souls—for the souls that can bear such treatment are made of yielding materials, just animated enough to give life to the body.

"Matter too soft a lasting mark to bear,

And best distinguish'd by black, brown, or fair."

The most cruel wounds will of course soon heal, and they may still people the world, and dress to please man—all the purposes which certain celebrated writers have allowed that they were created to fill.

SECTION 13.4.

Women are supposed to possess more sensibility, and even humanity, than men, and their strong attachments and instantaneous emotions of compassion are given as proofs; but the clinging affection of ignorance has seldom any thing noble in it, and may mostly be resolved into selfishness, as well as the affection of children and brutes. I have known many weak women whose sensibility was entirely engrossed by their husbands; and as for their humanity, it was very faint indeed, or rather it was only a transient emotion of compassion, "Humanity does not consist in a squeamish ear," says an eminent orator. "It belongs to the mind as well as the nerves."

But this kind of exclusive affection, though it degrade the individual, should not be brought forward as a proof of the inferiority of the sex, because it is the natural consequence of confined views: for even women of superior sense, having their attention turned to little employments, and private plans, rarely rise to heroism, unless when spurred on by love; and love as an heroic passion, like genius, appears but once in an age. I therefore agree with the moralist who asserts, "that women have seldom so much generosity as men;" and that their narrow affections, to which justice and humanity are often sacrificed, render the sex apparently inferior, especially as they are commonly inspired by men; but I contend, that the heart would expand as the understanding gained strength, if women were not depressed from their cradles.

I know that a little sensibility and great weakness will produce a strong sexual attachment, and that reason must cement friendship; consequently I allow, that more friendship is to be found in the male than the female world, and that men have a higher sense of justice. The exclusive affections of women seem indeed to resemble Cato's most unjust love for his country. He wished to crush Carthage, not to save Rome, but to promote its vain glory; and in general, it is to similar principles that humanity is sacrificed, for genuine duties support each other.

Besides, how can women be just or generous, when they are the slaves of injustice.

SECTION 13.5.

As the rearing of children, that is, the laying a foundation of sound health both of body and mind in the rising generation, has justly been insisted on as the peculiar destination of woman, the ignorance that incapacitates them must be contrary to the order of things. And I contend, that their minds can take in much more, and ought to do so, or they will never become sensible mothers. Many men attend to the breeding of horses, and overlook the management of the stable, who would, strange want of sense and feeling! think themselves degraded by paying any attention to the nursery; yet, how many children are absolutely murdered by the ignorance of women! But when they escape, and are neither destroyed by unnatural negligence nor blind fondness, how few are managed properly with respect to the infant mind! So that to break the spirit, allowed to become vicious at home, a child is sent to school; and the methods taken there, which must be taken to keep a number of children in order, scatter the seeds of almost every vice in the soil thus forcibly torn up.

I have sometimes compared the struggles of these poor children who ought never to have felt restraint, nor would, had they been always held in with an even hand, to the despairing plunges of a spirited filly, which I have seen breaking on a strand; its feet sinking deeper and deeper in the sand every time it endeavoured to throw its rider, till at last it sullenly submitted.

I have always found horses, an animal I am attached to, very tractable when treated with humanity and steadiness, so that I doubt whether the violent methods taken to break them, do not essentially injure them; I am, however, certain that a child should never be thus forcibly tamed after it has injudiciously been allowed to run wild; for every violation of justice and reason, in the treatment of children, weakens their reason. And, so early do they catch a character, that the base of the moral character, experience leads me to infer, is fixed before their seventh year, the period during which women are allowed the sole management of children. Afterwards it too often happens that half the business of education is to correct, and very imperfectly is it done, if done hastily, the faults, which they would never have acquired if their mothers had had more understanding.

One striking instance of the folly of women must not be omitted. The manner in which they treat servants in the presence of children, permitting them to suppose, that they ought to wait on them, and bear their humours. A child should always be made to receive assistance from a man or woman as a favour; and, as the first lesson of independence, they should practically be taught, by the example of their mother, not to require that personal attendance which it is an insult to humanity to require, when in health; and instead of being led to assume airs of consequence, a sense of their own weakness should first make them feel the natural equality of man. Yet, how frequently have I indignantly heard servants imperiously called to put children to bed, and sent away again and again, because master or miss hung about mamma, to stay a little longer. Thus made slavishly to attend the little idol, all those most disgusting humours were exhibited which characterize a spoiled child.

In short, speaking of the majority of mothers, they leave their children entirely to the care of servants: or, because they are their children, treat them as if they were little demi-gods, though I have always observed, that the women who thus idolize their children, seldom show common humanity to servants, or feel the least tenderness for any children but their own.

It is, however, these exclusive affections, and an individual manner of seeing things, produced by ignorance, which keep women for ever at a stand, with respect to improvement, and make many of them dedicate their lives to their children only to weaken their bodies and spoil their tempers, frustrating also any plan of education that a more rational father may adopt; for unless a mother concurs, the father who restrains will ever be considered as a tyrant.

But, fulfilling the duties of a mother, a woman with a sound constitution, may still keep her person scrupulously neat, and assist to maintain her family, if necessary, or by reading and conversations with both sexes, indiscriminately, improve her mind. For nature has so wisely ordered things, that did women suckle their children, they would preserve their own health, and there would be such an interval between the birth of each child, that we should seldom see a house full of babes. And did they pursue a plan of conduct, and not waste their time in following the fashionable vagaries of dress, the management of their household and children need not shut them out from literature, nor prevent their attaching themselves to a science, with that steady eye which strengthens the mind, or practising one of the fine arts that cultivate the taste.

But, visiting to display finery, card playing, and balls, not to mention the idle bustle of morning trifling, draw women from their duty, to render them insignificant, to render them pleasing, according to the present acceptation of the word, to every man, but their husband. For a round of pleasures in which the affections are not exercised, cannot be said to improve the understanding, though it be erroneously called seeing the world; yet the heart is rendered cold and averse to duty, by such a senseless intercourse, which becomes necessary from habit, even when it has ceased to amuse.

But, till more equality be established in society, till ranks are confounded and women freed, we shall not see that dignified domestic happiness, the simple grandeur of which cannot be relished by ignorant or vitiated minds; nor will the important task of education ever be properly begun till the person of a woman is no longer preferred to her mind. For it would be as wise to expect corn from tares, or figs from thistles, as that a foolish ignorant woman should be a good mother.

SECTION 13.6.

It is not necessary to inform the sagacious reader, now I enter on my concluding reflections, that the discussion of this subject merely consists in opening a few simple principles, and clearing away the rubbish which obscured them. But, as all readers are not sagacious, I must be allowed to add some explanatory remarks to bring the subject home to reason—to that sluggish reason, which supinely takes opinions on trust, and obstinately supports them to spare itself the labour of thinking.

Moralists have unanimously agreed, that unless virtue be nursed by liberty, it will never attain due strength—and what they say of man I extend to mankind, insisting, that in all cases morals must be fixed on immutable principles; and that the being cannot be termed rational or virtuous, who obeys any authority but that of reason.

To render women truly useful members of society, I argue, that they should be led, by having their understandings cultivated on a large scale, to acquire a rational affection for their country, founded on knowledge, because it is obvious, that we are little interested about what we do not understand. And to render this general knowledge of due importance, I have endeavoured to show that private duties are never properly fulfilled, unless the understanding enlarges the heart; and that public virtue is only an aggregate of private. But, the distinctions established in society undermine both, by beating out the solid gold of virtue, till it becomes only the tinsel-covering of vice; for, whilst wealth renders a man more respectable than virtue, wealth will be sought before virtue; and, whilst women's persons are caressed, when a childish simper shows an absence of mind—the mind will lie fallow. Yet, true voluptuousness must proceed from the mind—for what can equal the sensations produced by mutual affection, supported by mutual respect? What are the cold or feverish caresses of appetite, but sin embracing death, compared with the modest overflowings of a pure heart and exalted imagination? Yes, let me tell the libertine of fancy when he despises understanding in woman—that the mind, which he disregards, gives life to the enthusiastic affection from which rapture, short-lived as it is, alone can flow! And, that, without virtue, a sexual attachment must expire, like a tallow candle in the socket, creating intolerable disgust. To prove this, I need only observe, that men who have wasted great part of their lives with women, and with whom they have sought for pleasure with eager thirst, entertain the meanest opinion of the sex. Virtue, true refiner of joy! if foolish men were to fright thee from earth, in order to give loose to all their appetites without a check—some sensual wight of taste would scale the heavens to invite thee back, to give a zest to pleasure!

That women at present are by ignorance rendered foolish or vicious, is, I think, not to be disputed; and, that the most salutary effects tending to improve mankind, might be expected from a REVOLUTION in female manners, appears at least, with a face of probability, to rise out of the observation. For as marriage has been termed the parent of those endearing charities, which draw man from the brutal herd, the corrupting intercourse that wealth, idleness, and folly produce between the sexes, is more universally injurious to morality, than all the other vices of mankind collectively considered. To adulterous lust the most sacred duties are sacrificed, because, before marriage, men, by a promiscuous intimacy with women, learned to consider love as a selfish gratification—learned to separate it not only from esteem, but from the affection merely built on habit, which mixes a little humanity with it. Justice and friendship are also set at defiance, and that purity of taste is vitiated, which would naturally lead a man to relish an artless display of affection, rather than affected airs. But that noble simplicity of affection, which dares to appear unadorned, has few attractions for the libertine, though it be the charm, which, by cementing the matrimonial tie, secures to the pledges of a warmer passion the necessary parental attention; for children will never be properly educated till friendship subsists between parents. Virtue flies from a house divided against itself—and a whole legion of devils take up their residence there.

The affection of husbands and wives cannot be pure when they have so few sentiments in common, and when so little confidence is established at home, as must be the case when their pursuits are so different. That intimacy from which tenderness should flow, will not, cannot subsist between the vicious.

Contending, therefore, that the sexual distinction, which men have so warmly insisted upon, is arbitrary, I have dwelt on an observation, that several sensible men, with whom I have conversed on the subject, allowed to be well founded; and it is simply this, that the little chastity to be found amongst men, and consequent disregard of modesty, tend to degrade both sexes; and further, that the modesty of women, characterized as such, will often be only the artful veil of wantonness, instead of being the natural reflection of purity, till modesty be universally respected.

>From the tyranny of man, I firmly believe, the greater number of female follies proceed; and the cunning, which I allow, makes at present a part of their character, I likewise have repeatedly endeavoured to prove, is produced by oppression. Were not dissenters, for instance, a class of people, with strict truth characterized as cunning? And may I not lay some stress on this fact to prove, that when any power but reason curbs the free spirit of man, dissimulation is practised, and the various shifts of art are naturally called forth? Great attention to decorum, which was carried to a degree of scrupulosity, and all that puerile bustle about trifles and consequential solemnity, which Butler's caricature of a dissenter brings before the imagination, shaped their persons as well as their minds in the mould of prim littleness. I speak collectively, for I know how many ornaments to human nature have been enrolled amongst sectaries; yet, I assert, that the same narrow prejudice for their sect, which women have for their families, prevailed in the dissenting part of the community, however worthy in other respects; and also that the same timid prudence, or headstrong efforts, often disgraced the exertions of both. Oppression thus formed many of the features of their character perfectly to coincide with that of the oppressed half of mankind; for is it not notorious, that dissenters were like women, fond of deliberating together, and asking advice of each other, till by a complication of little contrivances, some little end was brought about? A similar attention to preserve their reputation was conspicuous in the dissenting and female world, and was produced by a similar cause.

Asserting the rights which women in common with men ought to contend for, I have not attempted to extenuate their faults; but to prove them to be the natural consequence of their education and station in society. If so, it is reasonable to suppose, that they will change their character, and correct their vices and follies, when they are allowed to be free in a physical, moral, and civil sense.

Let woman share the rights, and she will emulate the virtues of man; for she must grow more perfect when emancipated, or justify the authority that chains such a weak being to her duty. If the latter, it will be expedient to open a fresh trade with Russia for whips; a present which a father should always make to his son-in-law on his wedding day, that a husband may keep his whole family in order by the same means; and without any violation of justice reign, wielding this sceptre, sole master of his house, because he is the only being in it who has reason; the divine, indefeasible, earthly sovereignty breathed into man by the Master of the universe. Allowing this position, women have not any inherent rights to claim; and, by the same rule their duties vanish, for rights and duties are inseparable.

Be just then, O ye men of understanding! and mark not more severely what women do amiss, than the vicious tricks of the horse or the ass for whom ye provide provender, and allow her the privileges of ignorance, to whom ye deny the rights of reason, or ye will be worse than Egyptian task-masters, expecting virtue where nature has not given understanding!